[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6644-6671]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 4487, and that I 
may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meadows). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 557 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 4487.
  The Chair appoints the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) to 
preside over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0912


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 4487) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, with Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, thank you for the recognition, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2015, provides $3.3 billion for the operations of the legislative 
branch, excluding Senate items. The recommendation is the equivalent to 
the fiscal year 2014 level and a decrease of $122.5 million, or 3.7 
percent, from the requested level.
  Conforming with the longstanding practice under which each body of 
Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements and the other 
concurs without intervention, funds for the Senate are not included in 
the bill as reported by the committee.
  Through seven hearings and meetings with agency heads, the committee 
listened to all who presented their respective concerns and budget 
requests. It was necessary to make some critical decisions and 
prioritize programs, and we did this in a bipartisan and transparent 
manner.
  We are presenting to the House today a bill that is fiscally 
responsible and maintains current operations for the Legislative Branch 
agencies.
  The bill includes $1.2 billion for the operations of the House. This 
is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $20 million 
below the request. It is worthy to note that the funding provided for 
Member's Representational Allowances and Committees provides for the 
current operations, and I do not anticipate further reductions in the 
coming year. The bill also includes the Members' pay freeze for fiscal 
year 2015.

                              {time}  0915

  With this bill, total funding for the House of Representatives is 14 
percent below fiscal year 2010.
  The bill includes $348 million for the Capitol Police. This is $9.5 
million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $77 million less 
than the requested level. This will support 1,775 sworn officers and 
370 civilian positions. A slight increase above last year is provided 
to ensure the Capitol Police maintain current operations and ensure 
mission-essential training.
  Knowing that access to the House office buildings is of critical 
concern to Members, we directed that the Chief of Police develop an 
action plan that will make sure public access to our buildings is 
easily accessible during heightened periods of visitation. The 
implementation of this plan is in the early stages, and we will 
continue to monitor the budgetary impacts to the Capitol Police.
  The bill includes $45.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office. 
This is at

[[Page 6645]]

the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $378,000 below the requested 
level.
  The bill includes $488.6 million for the Architect of the Capitol, 
excluding Senate items. This is a decrease of $40.5 million from the 
fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $79 million below the requested 
level.
  Within the recommended level, the committee continues its 
prioritization of projects that promote the safety and public health of 
workers and occupants, decrease the deferred maintenance backlog, and 
invest to achieve future energy savings.
  The committee recognizes the continuing challenge of preserving and 
maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in 
the current budgetary environment. It is important to note that $21 
million is recommended for the final phase of dome restoration, a very 
high priority of this committee.
  In addition, we are continuing the 5-year practice of including funds 
for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, a fund 
established by Ms. Wasserman Schultz when she was chair of this 
subcommittee in anticipation of the renovation of the historic Cannon 
House Office Building.
  Might I say, it is one of the really tremendous contributions that my 
friend and colleague has made, and I hope it stays inside of our 
operating procedure for many years to come. It was a wise decision.
  Also included is $16 million for the lease cost of a portion of the 
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Office Building in preparation of the 
Cannon renewal project.
  The bill includes $595 million for the operations of the Library of 
Congress. This is an increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level and $1.9 million above the requested level. The amount 
will allow the Library to continue at current operations.
  Established by Congress in 1800, the Library of Congress is one of 
the largest libraries in the world, with a collection of more than 130 
million print, audio, and video items in 460 languages. It is 
imperative adequate funding is provided to maintain acquisitions, 
preservation, the administration of U.S. copyright laws by the U.S. 
Copyright Office for research and analysis of policy issues for the 
Congress by the Congressional Research Service, and the administration 
of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and 
physically handicapped.
  The bill before you accomplishes all of that.
  It is important to note $5.5 million of the funding is provided for 
the Deacidification Program, which is $1 million over the Library's 
request. And $8.2 million is for the Teaching with Primary Sources 
Program, at $1 million over the request, to be used for competitive 
opportunities for developing online interactive and apps for classroom 
use on Congress and civic participation.
  It is $1.2 million above the request for the Copyright Office to 
reduce the claims and processing time for copyright registrations and 
to conduct business analyses for the process engineering of the 
documentation recordation function.
  The bill includes $122.6 million for the Government Printing Office. 
This is an increase of $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted 
level and $6.3 million below the requested level. Funds have been 
included for continuation of development and infrastructure costs 
associated with the Federal digital system and the system replacement 
for upgrading the extensible markup language.
  The bill includes $519.6 million for the Government Accountability 
Office. This is an increase of $14.2 million above the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level and $5.5 million below the requested level. Language is 
included to establish a Center for Audit Excellence to build global 
institutional auditing capacity and promote good governance. This 
center is to be operated on a fee-based basis.
  Finally, the bill includes $3.42 million for the Open World 
Leadership Trust Fund. This is $2.58 million below the fiscal year 2014 
enacted level and $4.58 million below the requested level.
  As a sign of support for Ukraine, the committee has reduced the 
program by 43 percent. This represents the program's percentage of 
participants from Russia. It is important to stress that Open World's 
program does not just focus on work with Russia. Ukraine has the next 
largest group of participants, closely followed by other nations in the 
surrounding region. Therefore, we encourage the center to do more in 
Ukraine and with other participating countries in the surrounding 
region.
  I would like to thank my good friend, the ranking member, Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz, for her role throughout the process. We have worked 
well together in a bipartisan manner. It has truly been a team effort.
  Also, I extend my appreciation to all members of the subcommittee in 
their efforts in helping bring this measure to the floor. I also want 
to thank the truly excellent staff that has nursed me through this.
  Let me just add, parenthetically, that we had a pretty unusual 
situation in that, because of some early retirements and the loss of 
our dear friend, Bill Young, we had a lot of reshuffling to do on our 
committee. On our side, that meant we only had one carryover member, 
and that was the vice chairman, Mr. Harris from Maryland, who was 
indispensable and extraordinarily helpful to the rest of us.
  Again, without a capable staff and without, frankly, a wonderful 
working partner in my ranking member, we would have had a much more 
difficult time. Frankly, I don't think anybody in this institution 
knows this bill and this process better than Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She 
has been my friend. I was once on her committee as a very junior member 
when she chaired it, and I learned a lot from her then. I learned a lot 
more from her this time.
  I look forward to the debate, and with that, I reserve the balance of 
my time.

[[Page 6646]]





[[Page 6647]]



[[Page 6648]]



[[Page 6649]]


  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  First, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and my ranking member, Nita 
Lowey, for the commitment that they made to regular order, which is why 
we have our second appropriations bill on the House floor by May 1. It 
is my hope that we can stay true to this commitment throughout the 
remainder of this year.
  I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom 
Cole, who I really couldn't say enough good things about what an 
incredible partner he has been. We really have--and I will say that 
several times throughout my remarks--worked cooperatively, 
collaboratively, and I think the finest compliment that I can pay 
another Member is that they are an institutionalist--someone who has 
incredible respect for those that came before us and the history and 
tradition and all that has led to us being the finest democratic 
institution in the entire world.
  We are stewards of the Capitol complex in the Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Subcommittee, and the chairman really has most 
definitely recognized that and honored it.
  The budget deal struck during the shutdown last year gave us 2 years 
of discretionary caps so that the Appropriations Committee can now get 
on with the business of funding important government programs.
  There are many opinions about how these resources should be allocated 
amongst programs, but that is a legitimate debate, rather than the 
alternative, which we saw during the government shutdown last October.
  For my part, I am pleased with and supportive of the bill that my 
good friend Chairman Cole has put forward today, done within the 
funding constraints that the Legislative Branch Subcommittee had to 
operate under. We worked collaboratively, and, as always, it was a 
pleasure to work with him.
  The bill provides level funding, and, unfortunately, the constrained 
allocation has ensured that there is no increase for Member and 
committee offices. Personal office budgets have been cut by 16 percent 
since 2010, while committees have been cut by 14 percent over the same 
period. When considered through a long lens, those cuts are even more 
damaging.
  The Congressional Research Service reported in August 2010 that House 
committee staff levels declined 28 percent between 1977 and 2009. The 
recent cuts have only served to compound the decline in staffing levels 
highlighted by CRS.
  There is no question that these cuts will continue to have a harmful 
effect on this institution--on our ability to retain the best and 
brightest and to serve our constituents most effectively. We have gone 
through some difficult economic times, there is no question, but as we 
emerge, we need to consider how continuing these stark funding levels 
affects our ability to compete with the executive branch and the Senate 
for the best talent. When a Senator can offer to double the salary of a 
legislative assistant working for a House Member, there is an imbalance 
that we ignore in the House, at our peril.
  I want to thank Chairman Cole also for the focus placed on the 
Copyright Office in this bill. In the FY 2015 budget hearing with the 
Library of Congress last month, we heard about the need to bring the 
copyright system into the 21st century with business practices that 
provide for more interaction and improvement with the copyright 
community.
  This bill starts that process by investing $1.5 million in much-
needed IT improvements for the Copyright Office. The bill also carves 
out $750,000 to deal with the copyright backlog, which grew larger over 
the last few years as they lost staff due to tightening budgets.
  As the authorizing committees review our Nation's copyright laws, 
these additional investments will ensure that the Copyright Office can 
meet immediate needs as well as prepare for new ways to do business.
  During the Capitol Police hearing and during subcommittee markup we 
heard from Members on both sides of the aisle about the impact door 
closures have had on our constituents and staff. This is why we 
included report language requesting a report on how the Capitol Police 
can accomplish door openings without increasing overtime. We have now 
received what I can only hope is a draft report from the Capitol Police 
that details the opening of only two doors for 2\1/2\ hours each day.
  The committee has been clear that access is one of the Capitol 
Police's top priorities, and the current plan does not reflect that 
priority. My expectation, which I know is shared by many Members, is 
that now that the Capitol Police have been provided essentially full 
relief from the sequester, multiple doors throughout the House should 
be staffed and opened for the entire workday.
  Reducing overtime costs through door closures is unacceptable. 
Forcing our constituents, staff, and people trying to do business at 
the Capitol into long lines is inefficient and stressful for the public 
and the officers.
  I will be asking the Chief to go back to the drawing board on this 
report.
  The bill continues funding for the House Historic Buildings 
Revitalization Trust Fund at $70 million, for which I thank the 
chairman. Since the estimate to rehabilitate the Cannon House Office 
Building, which is 100 years old, has come in at a staggering $753 
million, investing a little at a time in the trust fund is the most 
responsible way to fund this and other major projects.
  The bill also includes funding for the final phase of the Capitol 
dome project at $21.2 million. The funding provided this year will 
address the interior walls, columns, and coffered ceiling that have 
sustained significant water damage and paint delamination.
  The public will soon see the skyline of our Nation's Capital changed 
with scaffolding on the Capitol dome that will begin to go up at the 
end of this month, using funds from previous years. The total pricetag 
to restore the dome will be around $106 million after this year's 
funding is provided.
  This bill also directs the Library of Congress to continue their 30-
year program to deacidify books and provides an additional $1 million 
to keep that program on track.
  Also of note, the bill cuts the Open World Leadership Center by 43 
percent to $3.4 million. The Stennis Center Leadership program is 
funded at $430,000 after finally--and thankfully--providing the 
committee with a budget justification for the first time, on time.
  I congratulate Chairman Cole on writing a balanced bill with a few 
targeted investments. Even though I wish we could do more--and I know 
he does too--to invest in our staff, I know that the chairman had many 
competing priorities, including our vast infrastructure needs.
  Chairman Cole, again, I have truly enjoyed working with you in this 
role, and I appreciate the accommodations made for the minority in this 
bill. Working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle has been 
an absolute pleasure. It was a collaborative and cooperative effort. We 
are truly, I think, the example for the entire Congress on what 
collegiality means. The process in putting this bill together was 
really a team effort.
  Chairman Cole understands that this may be the smallest 
appropriations bill, but one that is essential to his colleagues and 
the job they do to serve their constituents.
  In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the committee staff as 
well who has helped to craft this bill and assisted in a bipartisan 
manner: Shalanda Young; Liz Dawson, who continues to amaze us every 
single fiscal year; Chuck Turner; and Jenny Panone.
  Also, we could not have done this without our personal staff: Maria 
Bowie and Sean Murphy, with Chairman Cole's personal office; and Ian 
Rayder from my office.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from 
the great State of Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

[[Page 6650]]



                              {time}  0930

  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Chairman, I seek the opportunity to have a 
colloquy with Chairman Cole. I thank them for their work, the chairman 
and his staff, the work they have put into the legislation they are 
bringing before us this morning.
  As a member of the Congressional Yellow Pages Caucus, I strongly 
believe that if an activity is available from a private company that 
can be found in the Yellow Pages, it should either not be a 
responsibility carried out by the Federal Government or, at the very 
least, performed by a private firm under contract with the Federal 
Government.
  It is in that spirit that Congress needs to begin the process of 
leveling the playing field between the Government Printing Office, the 
GPO, and private industry. Nowhere is the overreach of the GPO and its 
statutory authority, found in title 44 of the United States Code, more 
egregious than in the area of secure Federal credentials.
  Consider this: title 44 was codified in 1968. Secure credentials, 
produced by the private sector, first appeared about 30 years later and 
then became pervasive after 9/11.
  I can't imagine that policymakers in the sixties could have ever 
envisioned title 44 expanding beyond the printing of copies of the 
Federal Register or the Declaration of Independence to cover 
credentials, let alone secure credentials, as the kind of printed 
products the GPO has traditionally produced.
  The GPO's statutory monopoly on this issue has been challenged by 
numerous reports by the GAO and groups such as the National Performance 
Review.
  Secure credentials are a world apart from the products that GPO has 
traditionally produced and should not be subject to title 44.
  I hope that we can take steps to define a clear role for the GPO, 
create competition, and ensure that the private secure credentials 
industry and companies like MorphoTrust in Tennessee can perform these 
functions that the GPO has no business in carrying out.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds just to 
note that the Government Printing Office has been in business, doing 
the work, beyond the scope of printing the Federal Register, for more 
than 100 years.
  It is also important to note that they specifically contract with the 
private sector to print a myriad of documents, and they are not the 
only institution that prints documents.
  Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I want to thank my good friend from Florida 
for her leadership on this bill, as well as my very good friend from 
Oklahoma, who has done a terrific job as chair. Both of you take your 
responsibilities extremely seriously, as you should.
  This is the bill that funds the institution itself, and you have both 
resisted efforts to demean this institution and to suggest that 
traditions and resources that have been available to this institution 
in the past are not necessary.
  Both of you understand, because you are institutionalists and revere 
this institution, there are a lot of things that go on in this 
institution that play an important role toward serving the American 
public.
  I do regret the fact that there was an amendment that was not made in 
order. I didn't expect that this amendment would have passed, but it 
was an issue that needed to be discussed on the House floor because it 
sets a precedent, what I believe is a very dangerous precedent.
  This year, this bill freezes congressional compensation. It is the 
sixth year in a row that we have frozen our own salaries, but by 
putting it in this bill, I have been part of this institution long 
enough to know that, once you do that, there is a very high likelihood 
that neither political party, no matter who has the majority, is going 
to be willing to ever take it out; and so it will acquire an aspect of 
permanence.
  So what I suggested is that we have a $25 a day housing stipend, just 
for those Members that live at least 50 miles from Washington, D.C. I 
am 10 miles. It wouldn't affect me. None of the other things that are 
available to Members, small as they might be, affect us either.
  Obviously, we can't change our own pay. We can't raise it. So it 
wouldn't apply till the next term. I am retiring, but I will never lose 
my love for this institution, and that is why I am doing it.
  It just happens that we will be in session 112 days, times 25, that 
would come, not coincidentally, to exactly what the salary increase 
would have been had we not frozen it.
  The reason for doing this is that, since I was first elected to the 
Congress, in inflation-adjusted dollars, the compensation to Members 
has gone down by one-fifth. In the meantime, the cost of rental housing 
in D.C. has increased substantially.
  Rental housing is going up as fast or faster than most other 
metropolitan areas of the country. In fact, the median cost per month, 
it is $2,250; per year, it is $27,000.
  The problem is that if we continue to freeze the compensation to 
Members, my fear is--and Mr. Cole, I know, is going to provide a 
different perspective, but I think the fear is legitimate--that what we 
will wind up with is a composition of the Congress composed primarily 
of Members who don't need the pay, who are independently wealthy, who 
can blithely send the check back and take credit for it because they 
don't need it. In fact, more than half the Congress today, I 
understand, are millionaires.
  On the other hand, you may have some who figure, well, I will serve 
one, two, three terms and then go into the private sector and use that 
experience, albeit limited, to enrich themselves. A lot of people do 
it. I am not being particularly critical, but I want to raise the issue 
as to what that means for the Congress itself, for this institution.
  I don't think this is the right thing to do, Madam Chairman. We need 
people who represent those folks who barely make it, who have to pay a 
mortgage, who have student loans to pay, who have kids to raise. They 
represent the majority in this country, and it is so difficult for 
Members to maintain two residences.
  I wouldn't have expected us to lose an opportunity for self-
flagellation, but I do think we should have raised this issue.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my very good friend.
  I think I have made my point. We need to be as representative of the 
country as possible. For all our failings, for all our deficiencies, 
for all our needs, our struggles, we need to be able to empathize with 
people who have the same kind of financial constraints.
  I know people think this is a lot of money, but if you are not going 
to show respect to yourself as an institution, you can't expect the 
public to show you much respect either.
  We are the board of directors of the largest economic entity in the 
world. We deserve that respect. We ought to stand up for ourselves, 
defend this Congress--because what we do is defensible--and show that 
we merit adequate compensation, so we can be wholly representative of 
this great American public.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend and I have had a number of opportunities to talk about this 
issue. We talked about it in committee, we talked about it yesterday in 
discussion on the rule, and we are talking about it today because I 
think he wants to make his point, and I think he is using every 
opportunity to make his point.
  Quite frankly, it is a point that needs to be made and a point that 
deserves to be heard. One of the things I will miss about my friend a 
lot is his tenacity when he has got something that he thinks is 
important and his willingness to go through a little heat and a little 
criticism, which I know he has received over this, to make that point. 
That is

[[Page 6651]]

a very valuable characteristic in any Member.
  I don't think we are in immediate danger, the kind of future and the 
kind of House that my friend describes, but I do think, if we were to 
continue this course indefinitely, we would be.
  Now, again, as I mentioned yesterday in our exchange, remember, a lot 
of people who come here for a short time aren't coming here to cash out 
on anything. They are coming here because they believe in the limited 
time of public service, and quite often, that is a pretty popular point 
of view in their districts. So I cast no aspersions on somebody that 
comes for 6 or 8 years, and that is their choice.
  In my State, that is exactly what Senator Tom Coburn did in this body 
for 6 years and what he has done in the United States Senate. I know 
that is a sincere opinion as to what he thinks the appropriate thing 
is, and quite frankly, he has certainly never cast himself out and hung 
around Washington, D.C. I think that is true of many, many Members.
  As my friend makes a good point about the character of the body and 
where we may be headed if we do the wrong things over time, I also 
think we are in a really critical point in our country where we are 
having to make a lot of difficult decisions.
  We have made a lot of difficult decisions on this committee, made a 
lot of cuts that we didn't want to make because we thought the budget 
deficit was too high, and we needed to ask people to make some painful 
reductions.
  I think if you are going to ask people to make painful reductions you 
have got to lead by example, and I think that is actually what both 
sides have tried to do.
  Again, I know when my friends were in the majority, we didn't always 
get cost of living increases and those sorts of things either. They had 
inherited a difficult situation. They were making tough choices, and 
they were trying to lead by example.
  I think that is exactly what this majority has continued to do, and 
so maintaining your personal credibility and your institutional 
responsibility, while you are arriving at and administering difficult 
decisions, I think, is a very important characteristic. So that is what 
we have tried to do in this bill.
  Again, I appreciate my friend for making his point because I think, 
over time, we could change the character of the institution if we are 
not careful. I don't think that is an immediate concern, but it is one 
we ought to reflect on as we move forward.
  Again, I thank him for his service, and I thank him for his 
persistence and tenacity.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time, I yield such time 
as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our 
distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chair, I want to thank Chairman Cole and Ranking 
Member Debbie Wasserman Schultz for their hard work on this bill. It 
really was a bipartisan effort, and I do think you have produced a good 
bill.
  Today, we consider the smallest of the appropriations bills which 
funds the operations of our Nation's legislative branch.
  Without Senate items, the bill is $3.326 billion, the same as 2014. 
While I am pleased with the overall funding level, it was my hope that, 
after years of cuts to Member Representational Allowances, or the MRAs, 
we might provide a modest increase this year.
  Member offices have sustained $106 million in cuts since 2010. While 
some reduction was appropriate, those cuts have severely strained the 
House's ability to serve the American people, due to fewer staff for 
constituent casework, the inability to effectively communicate with our 
constituents, and fewer district offices.
  Unless we return to sensible funding levels, we cannot stave off the 
further erosion of expertise, morale, and comity in this great 
institution.
  This bill funds the Open World Leadership program at $3.42 million, a 
reduction of $2.58 million. Instead of reducing funds equivalent to the 
amount for exchanges with Russians, we should shift the funds to 
support a larger presence in Ukraine and other countries fostering 
democratic principles, as suggested in the committee report.

                              {time}  0945

  Madam Chair, with that said, I congratulate, once again, the chairman 
and the ranking member of the subcommittee for putting forth a balanced 
bill and urge its support.
  Mr. COLE. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), our distinguished ranking 
member of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me.
  Madam Chair, I just wanted to say a few words in support of this 
year's Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. I have been honored to 
serve on this subcommittee for the last 4 years. I am the only member, 
in fact, to have served on the subcommittee for the last two 
Congresses.
  It may have the smallest budget of the 12 appropriations bills, but 
it is vital to the work we do here in Congress and our ability to serve 
our constituents. From paying our staffs, to maintaining a digital and 
printed record of our work, to getting cost estimates of our 
legislative proposals, the legislative branch is so important to the 
proper functioning of our system of government.
  It is especially gratifying that this year's bill reverses some of 
the draconian cuts from the legislative branch which have occurred over 
the last few years. I said last year that including these cuts would 
have been like cutting off our nose to spite our face. After all, 
agencies under the bill's jurisdiction, like the Congressional Budget 
Office and the Government Accountability Office, help Congress to 
identify potential savings and efficiencies throughout the government.
  Or consider the Architect of the Capitol, which is responsible for 
the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the United 
States Capitol. Two years ago, the House couldn't find the necessary 
funds to complete the restoration of one of the most vital symbols of 
our democracy, the Capitol dome. I am pleased this year that the 
legislation includes $21.2 million for the last phase of the Capitol 
dome restoration.
  Other agencies in the bill receive much-needed investments, including 
the Library of Congress, the United States Capitol Police, and the 
Government Printing Office.
  I would like to commend the outstanding bipartisan work of Chairman 
Cole and Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz in crafting this year's bill. 
Chairman Cole has done a yeoman's job stepping in at the last moment 
following the retirement of our colleague Rodney Alexander and 
shepherding this measure for the full House Appropriations Committee 
this morning.
  I am also greatly appreciative of Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, 
whose institutional knowledge of the agencies in this measure is really 
unmatched.
  The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman from 
Georgia an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. Both Chairman Cole and Ranking Member 
Wasserman Schultz were greatly aided by their excellent staff: Liz 
Dawson, Chuck Turner, Jenny Panone, and Shalanda Young.
  I look forward to supporting the bill and doing all that I can to 
ensure its swift passage by the full House of Representatives.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was tempted to actually yield my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) 
additional time, he was being so kind to all of us on both sides of the 
aisle. But I genuinely want to thank my friend who is a very valuable 
member of our committee and, again, someone who is

[[Page 6652]]

always thoughtful, always helpful, and always works in a bipartisan 
manner. You saw it on this floor yesterday when he and Chairman 
Culberson delivered their bill in a very bipartisan and a very 
professional manner. He does the same thing on our committee. So I just 
wanted to thank my friend.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just wanted to once again thank my friend, my working partner in 
this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She, in this area, is an absolute expert 
without peer in this House, which has been enormously helpful to me.
  Again, I want to thank the members of the committee. I want to thank 
all of the staff, frankly, from both sides of the aisle, all of the 
personnel offices. They have just been absolutely first-rate.
  As I observed, I think, in one of our committee meetings, if the 
current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the former 
chief of staff of the Republican National Committee can work this well 
together, then surely all things are possible in this universe.
  It has been a pleasure to work with my friend. I look forward to 
continuing that collaboration as we go forward.
  With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. ROBY. Madam Chair, I rise today in support of H.R. 4487--the 
Fiscal Year 2015 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act.
  For our government to truly remain ``of the people, and by the 
people'' the House of Representatives must be a place that is open and 
transparent to all. From ensuring constituents can meet with their 
elected representatives to guaranteeing open access to the legislative 
business of Congress, the Legislative Branch must be accessible to the 
public. We also have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security 
of the U.S. Capitol complex for all who work here and all who visit.
  Therefore, as a Member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations 
Subcommittee, one of my priorities has been to provide appropriate 
oversight regarding the security of the U.S. Capitol complex, including 
Members, staff, and visitors. I have met personally with House Sergeant 
of Arms Paul Irving and will continue to follow closely any 
developments relating to security concerns. I greatly appreciate Mr. 
Irving and our professional team of Capitol Police officers for the 
tireless work they put in to protect us and all who visit these 
hallowed halls.
  Madam Chair, this bill adequately provides for the needs of the House 
Sergeant of Arms and the Capitol Police to ensure the necessary steps 
can be taken to maintain and strengthen security procedures for the 
entire Capitol complex.
  Recent events have shown that even the most secure buildings in our 
country are still susceptible to security lapses. That is why it is 
more important than ever to remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure we 
are secure.
  As I continue to serve on this Subcommittee, it is my responsibility 
to ask questions, find solutions, and help enact policies to keep 
members, staff, and guests as safe as reasonably possible.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.
  Mr. GINGREY of Georgia. Madam Chair, I rise today to highlight what I 
believe are anti-competitive practices at the Government Printing 
Office, or GPO.
  As its name implies, the GPO was set up to do government printing. 
Title 44 of the United States Code states that ``all printing, binding, 
and blank-book work for Congress, the Executive Office, the Judiciary, 
other than the Supreme Court of the United States . . . shall be done 
at the Government Printing Office.'' GPO's mission statement is to 
``produce, protect, preserve, and distribute the official publications 
and information products of the Federal Government.'' Somehow, GPO has 
interpreted this to mean that ``printing'' includes the creation of 
secure federal credentials.
  Madam Chair, the production of secure federal credentials cannot be 
reasonably classified as printing. The production of these credentials 
involves electronic storage capability, anti-counterfeiting 
technologies, and specialized manufacturing techniques. Furthermore, 
Title 44 was codified in 1968--secure credentials were not created 
until 30 years later. It is hard to believe that lawmakers in the 
1960's could have envisioned the technical know-how that goes into 
making these credentials, much less classified the production as 
printing.
  The real problem, however, lies with GPO asserting its authority to 
make these products while crowding out private sector competition. The 
federal government has successfully contracted out production of secure 
credentials to the private sector for years. The private sector 
competes for these contracts, ensuring that we end up with the best 
product for the best price. More disturbingly, I have heard reports 
indicating that GPO has a dedicated sales staff, and sends other 
staffers on sales calls to promote its secure credentials capabilities 
to federal agencies. GPO's attempt to fill this space inhibits 
competition by encouraging the federal government to insource at the 
expense of innovations in the private sector. I believe we need to 
level the playing field.
  By highlighting this issue, I hope to trigger a discussion that will 
define a clear role for the GPO today, but also to ensure that the 
private secure credentials industry, the acknowledged leaders in this 
field, will have a chance to compete for government contracts.
  Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Madam Chair, earlier during debate 
colleagues criticized the production of secure credentials by the 
Government Printing Office for Federal agencies. Some of the 
statements, particularly the claim that this represents an 
``overreach'' of the GPO's statutory authority and that the GPO has a 
``monopoly on this issue'' are simply not true, and I want to correct 
the Record.
  At the request of then-Public Printer Robert Tapella, the Joint 
Committee on Printing, which I had the honor to chair during the 110th 
Congress, authorized GPO to perform this function. Since that time, 
every JCP chairman has overseen the GPO's production of secure 
credentials and approved the GPO's annual expenditures for this 
purpose.
  Far from an ``overreach,'' secure credential work is firmly within 
the GPO's statutory authority. GPO has a long history of secure 
credential work, such as with the manufacture of U.S. passport blanks 
since 1926. By definition, passports and all other forms of government 
credentials involve ``printing,'' the production of something in 
printed form. With secure credentials, intricate, multi-color modern 
printing embedded with anti-counterfeiting features is utterly 
indispensable to render a document immediately recognizable by handlers 
as the genuine article and thus inspire the confidence necessary to 
establish identity, facilitate border crossings and other purposes.
  While serving as Public Printer, Mr. Tapella once declared that the 
production of secure credentials for the Federal Government does not 
belong in the private sector. I happen to agree with him and believe 
Congress should direct as much secure credential business to GPO as 
possible. In my view, the production of Federal credentials is as 
inherently a government function as the production of United States 
currency, which is produced solely by the Treasury Department's Bureau 
of Engraving and Printing.
  But however much the former Public Printer and I may agree on this 
issue, the GPO today--under the leadership of Public Printer Davita 
Vance-Cooks--has taken a far more reasonable approach and simply makes 
the GPO available to all Federal agencies who wish to use its services. 
GPO asserts no ``monopoly'' nor can it as a practical matter, as 
Federal agencies are able to seek the services of either the public or 
private sector to meet their secure credential needs. With respect to 
the product at issue here, the GPO produces blank border-crossing cards 
for the State Department's visa office, and the cards are subsequently 
personalized by the State Department's own contractor, MorphoTrust. 
Moreover, the State Department continues to employ MorphTrust to 
produce passport cards, another secure credential. As here, the State 
Department and a number of other agencies contract directly with 
private companies for many of their secure-credential needs. To say, 
therefore, that GPO has a ``monopoly'' on the work is silly.
  On December 4, 2013, the House Administration Committee, on which I 
serve as Ranking Minority Member, held an oversight hearing on the 
recent report by the National Academy of Public Administration entitled 
``Rebooting the Government Printing Office: Keeping America Informed in 
the Digital Age.'' Congress ordered the study. Among other things, the 
Academy found that unlike with passports, ``the GPO is not the sole 
provider of smart cards [secure credentials]. Agencies may obtain smart 
cards from private sector vendors as well.'' The Academy's report 
endorsed GPO's work in that field.
  I urge my colleagues to read the Academy report, currently available 
on the Academy's web site. I also urge Members to review the response 
provided by the GPO to questions submitted for the record of the 
December 2013 hearing concerning secure credentials,

[[Page 6653]]

reprinted below. Clearly the GPO does not deserve the criticisms lodged 
earlier and elsewhere. The men and women of the GPO perform a valuable 
and necessary service in providing secure credentials to support the 
missions of Federal agencies involved in securing our borders and other 
law enforcement tasks.

  Excerpted Questions for the Record Submitted to the Public Printer, 
   Davita Vance-Cooks, Following the House Administration Committee 
                     Hearing Held December 4, 2013

       Question 7. GPO produces the millions of passports and 
     related documents provided to Americans every year by the 
     U.S. Department of State. You also provided sizeable 
     quantities of other so-called ``secure and intelligent 
     documents'' to the Department of Homeland Security. Do you 
     foresee this portion of your business expanding in the 
     future? Could GPO also produce such documents for state and 
     local governments, as suggested in the NAPA study's 
     Recommendation #9?
       Response. In the wake of 9/11 and the introduction HSPD-12 
     and related Federal identification requirements, there has 
     been an increase in the Government's need for secure 
     credentials. With the approval of the Joint Committee on 
     Printing, GPO implemented a capability in FY 2008 to help 
     address this need. While GPO is far from the only provider of 
     such requirements for Federal agencies, the volume of work 
     processed by our capability has increased and is projected to 
     increase in future years, as the report of the National 
     Academy of Public Administration recently concluded. 
     Regarding the production of secure credentials for state and 
     local governments, GPO does not have the statutory authority 
     to produce work that is not authorized by Federal law, nor 
     are we equipped and staffed to handle secure credentials for 
     all Federal agencies, much less for state and local 
     governments.
       Question 8. It is my understanding that aside from printing 
     passports, GPO has also undertaken the manufacture of Border 
     Crossing Cards and trusted traveler cards. Government 
     agencies have been procuring from the private sector and 
     issuing to their employees and contractors secure ID 
     documents for decades. When did GPO get into the business of 
     creating and providing secure credentials, other than 
     passports? Can you please provide rationale as to why GPO 
     believes that it should do this work for government agencies 
     as opposed to the private sector, which has invested heavily 
     to develop these new technologies?
       Response. GPO provides a government-to-government solution 
     to fulfill the requisitions of Federal agencies for secure 
     credentials. Our program is staffed by cleared personnel and 
     backed by a secure supply chain.
       The establishment of our secure credential capability was 
     endorsed to GPO management by GPO's Inspector General in 
     2005. GPO's proposal to set up a secure card center with its 
     Security and Intelligent Documents business unit subsequently 
     was approved in FY 2008 by the Joint Committee on Printing, 
     which since then has also approved--on a bipartisan basis--
     all funding for this program in GPO's annual spending plans. 
     In 2010, we became the only Federal agency certified by the 
     General Services Administration to graphically personalize 
     HSPD-12 credentials. In 2012 the Joint Committee on Printing 
     approved the establishment of a COOP capability for our 
     secure credential operations.
       GPO serves as a card integrator, working closely with 
     private sector providers to obtain the products and services 
     needed to fulfill requisitions submitted by Federal agencies. 
     For several years we have been accepted member of the Secure 
     Card Alliance, a consortium of private sector companies and 
     Federal agencies including the National Institute for 
     Standards and Technology, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, the Department of State, the Department of 
     Transportation, and the General Services Administration 
     (http://www.smartcardalliance.org/). We work with the private 
     sector for consulting, fabrication, design, materials, and 
     supplies, essentially incorporating the best that industry 
     has to offer into solutions sought by Federal agencies that 
     requisition the work from us.
       GPO's secure credentials capability serves as a valuable 
     resource to a number of Federal agencies, including the Joint 
     Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies and the U.S. 
     Capitol Police, which relied on us to provide secure law 
     enforcement credentials for the 2009 and 2013 Presidential 
     inaugurations. In addition to satisfactorily fulfilling 
     Federal agency requisitions for secure credentials, our card 
     production program was endorsed in the recent report of the 
     National Academy of Public Administration. GPO provides 
     secure credential products and services on a reimbursable 
     basis with no appropriated funds.
       Throughout the existence of GPO's secure credentials 
     program, we have been open and transparent about its 
     operation. As noted above, we are a well-known member of the 
     Smart Card Alliance. We are subject to the oversight of the 
     Joint Committee on Printing and our House and Senate 
     legislative oversight and appropriations committees. 
     Additionally, our program has been the subject of oversight 
     by our Office of Inspector General (see for example http://
www.gpo.gov/pdfs/ig/audits/11-06_AuditReport(Issued_
     March_31_2011).pdf); the IG's semiannual reports to Congress 
     for several years routinely tracked oversight of the GPO's 
     secure credentials program as a ``management challenge'' (see 
     for example http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/ig/semi-annual/11-30-
09.pdf). We have kept the public informed through press 
     releases (see for example http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/
press/09news19.pdf, http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/
10news39.pdf, and http://www.gpo.gov/pdfs/news-media/press/
11news60.pdf), YouTube videos (see for example http://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=levIY1qIPy0, http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=ettaBOW4UEA, and http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=mQxH1EZA71I), GPO annual reports to Congress, and 
     other media.
       Question 9. GPO's mission statement, articulated recently 
     in your agency's strategic plan ``is to produce, protect, 
     preserve, and distribute the official publications and 
     information products of the Federal Government.'' Do you 
     consider the production of secure credentials as 
     fundamentally related to or falling under GPO's mission? Do 
     you believe that the manufacture of secure credentials falls 
     within the definition of ``printing'' under Section 501 of 
     Title 44 U.S.C.? If so, has the GPO communicated this 
     interpretation to federal agencies in any of its discussions 
     with federal agencies? For ID cards and passports: what is 
     the cost of the ink and graphics component per security card? 
     What is the cost of the technological component per card?
       Response. Our ``produce, protect, preserve, and distribute 
     the official publications and information products of the 
     Federal Government'' mission statement appears in our 
     strategic plan and elsewhere to describe the informing 
     function that GPO carries out, a function that is traceable 
     to Article I in the Constitution. However, the public 
     printing statutes of Title 44, U.S.C., make it clear that the 
     performance of printing for the Government extends to a broad 
     variety of products and services, some of which do not 
     necessarily relate to an informing function. Over the years 
     GPO has produced or procured tax forms, census forms, Social 
     Security cards, ration cards, letterheads, envelopes, 
     passports, postal cards, and other printed products that are 
     associated with the operations of the Government. These 
     products are produced by printing processes, including the 
     processes of composition, presswork, and binding, which are 
     defined in Title 44 as within GPO's authority to perform. The 
     production of secure credentials for Federal agencies also 
     involves printing processes, and so GPO is authorized to 
     produce them (though as a practical matter, GPO is able and 
     equipped to produce only a limited amount of secure 
     credential work). As long as Federal agencies submit a 
     requisition that complies with the relevant provisions of 
     Title 44 (certifying that the products requested are 
     authorized by law, necessary to the public business, and 
     backed by the necessary funding), GPO will perform the work. 
     Federal agencies who have contacted us to discuss our secure 
     credential capabilities are aware of this fact. Regarding the 
     cost of ink and graphics component per security card, ink is 
     a very small percentage of the material cost for any of our 
     products (less than 1%). The technological component of our 
     card business (chip and antenna) is about 20-25%.
       Question 10. As you know, only about 16 percent of the GPO 
     is appropriated by Congress. The rest of GPO's funding comes 
     from ``operating profits.'' Did Congress appropriate the 
     money for the Secure Credential Innovation Center--which is 
     what I understand to be a new multi-million dollar GPO 
     facility? Or was that facility funded through operating 
     profits from ID card and other sales? Will the facility 
     affect overhead costs?
       Response. There appears to be a misunderstanding about 
     GPO's Secure Credential Innovation Center (SCIC). This is a 
     small (529 sq ft) work space on the 5th floor of GPO's 
     building C that is staffed by one FTE and equipped with a 
     single opening laminator, laser cutter, CNC mill, plasma 
     torch, UV epoxy curing station, and related equipment for the 
     design and testing of security features requisitioned by 
     Federal agencies for passports and other secure credentials. 
     It is not a ``multi-million dollar'' facility. It was funded 
     through the revolving fund, not appropriated funds.
       We also opened a secure card COOP capability at our 
     Stennis, MS, facility in 2013, with the approval of the Joint 
     Committee on Printing. The capital investment proposed for 
     this project was $2.2 million dollars, including $1.5 million 
     for a card printer and installation, $450,000 for the 
     required IT infrastructure, $175,000 for necessary space 
     renovations and security upgrades, and an estimated $75,000 
     in support and travel costs. All costs were funded through 
     GPO's revolving fund, and the project came in on time and 
     under budget.
       As costs of GPO's SID business unit, neither the Stennis 
     facility nor the SCIC are included in overhead costs for the 
     GPO as a whole. They are direct costs that are recovered 
     through the rates charged for SID products.

[[Page 6654]]

       As noted earlier, none of the funds for GPO's secure card 
     capability are appropriated by Congress. Concerning GPO's 
     finances under section 309 of Title 44, U.S.C., GPO does not 
     generate ``operating profits'' but is limited to recovering 
     its costs. Part of these costs includes the ability to 
     generate funds for investment in necessary equipment and 
     plant improvements.
       Question 11. I've heard that GPO ``sales teams'' have been 
     telling the State Department, the Department of Homeland 
     Security, and other agencies that utilize ID card 
     technologies for various programs--for example, to control 
     access to our borders and to verify immigration status--that 
     they are required by law to obtain their secure ID documents 
     from the GPO, because the GPO is the government's printer. Do 
     you believe that this is the case? Do you believe government-
     issued secure ID cards must be manufactured by and purchased 
     from the GPO, rather than the private sector? If so . . . do 
     you believe the GPO has the technological and security 
     capabilities to produce these types of items? If not . . . 
     are GPO sales teams in error if and when they state that 
     federal agencies are required to purchase these items from 
     the GPO by law?
       Response. In hearings before the House Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Subcommittee for FY 2010, former Public 
     Printer Robert C. Tapella said, ``I believe that Federal 
     credentials belong in a Federally-owned, Federally-operated 
     production environment and not in the private sector. And I 
     think it is an inherently governmental activity'' (Hearings, 
     Part II, April 28, 2009, p. 166). GPO management today does 
     not endorse this position nor would it be practical. As a 
     member organization of the Smart Card Alliance, we 
     acknowledge the role of the private sector secure credentials 
     industry in providing products and services to Federal 
     agencies, and we work closely with them in the integration of 
     card components to meet the requirements of products 
     requisitioned from us. We do not compete against private 
     sector companies for secure credential work. GPO provides a 
     limited capability that is available for the use of Federal 
     agencies seeking the provision of services in a govermnent-
     to-government setting, staffed by cleared personnel, and 
     backed by a secure supply chain. As a postscript, GPO's SID 
     business unit has one FTE (no sales teams) responsible for 
     addressing inquiries for SID products and services that come 
     from Federal agencies.
       Question 12. It is my understanding that GPO either will 
     soon or has recently begun manufacturing the US Border 
     Crossing Card. The GPO ``won'' that business away from a 
     private sector vendor. Please explain the process by which 
     GPO ``won'' the contract away from the private sector and the 
     decision-making behind GPO taking over production of the 
     Border Crossing Card.
       Response. We do not compete against private sector 
     companies for secure credential work, and as a result we do 
     not ``win business away'' from them. The Department of State 
     submitted an SF-1 requisition to GPO for the production of 
     the border crossing card. The decision to come to GPO for the 
     production of this card was made by the Department, and the 
     Department's requisition to us fulfilled all lawful 
     requirements. GPO cannot participate in Federal agency RFPs 
     where the private sector is involved. We are required by law 
     to respond to requisitions for printing services from Federal 
     agencies.
       Question 13. Are you aware of testimony before the House 
     Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National 
     Security that said that over 30,000 counterfeit US Border 
     Crossing Cards have been found at our US borders? Now that 
     GPO will be producing Border Crossing Cards, could you please 
     explain to the Committee how you will ensure that these cards 
     have the anti-counterfeit technologies required to make these 
     cards truly secure? Do you feel that GPO has the technical 
     expertise and capability to ensure that these cards are 
     equipped with anti-counterfeit technologies?
       Response. We are familiar with this testimony, which is 
     posted online by the Subcommittee. (In reviewing the 
     testimony provided at the hearing, we noted that the number 
     of Border Crossing Cards identified as fraudulent rather than 
     counterfeit by Chairman Chaffetz was 13,000, and that this 
     number was identified in FY 2009, at http://
oversighthouse.gov/hearing/border-security-oversight-part-
iii-border-crossingcards-b1b2-visas/, 2:04:15). GPO received 
     the requisition from the Department of State to begin 
     producing the Border Crossing Card in 2013. We also noted 
     that in the hearing the value of the Nexus card, which used 
     to cross the border with Canada, was described very 
     positively. GPO produces the Nexus card for the Department of 
     Homeland Security.
       Concerning GPO's ability to produce cards with anti-
     counterfeit technologies, GPO has significant expertise in 
     the field of secure document design based on our work with 
     passports. We have designed Government credentials with 
     advanced security features. We work closely with the 
     Department of Homeland Security's fraudulent document lab 
     experts to validate credential designs and utilize both 
     Government and commercial laboratories to test and evaluate 
     our credential performances. For the Border Crossing Card, 
     GPO worked with forensic document examiners at the Department 
     of Homeland Security and with Department of State personnel 
     to develop a product designed to withstand attempts at 
     counterfeiting. We have the expertise and capability to 
     ensure that these cards are equipped with anti-counterfeit 
     technologies.
       Question 14. I have heard that one of the ``selling 
     points'' GPO uses with executive branch agencies is that the 
     GPO can manufacture cards for them while also avoiding the 
     competitive bidding requirements under Federal Acquisition 
     Regulations. Do you believe that the GPO is required to 
     follow the Federal Acquisition Regulations when it buys 
     microchips, antennae, software, laminating materials, 
     substantive expertise and training for its employees? Do all 
     of those items need to be competitively bid to the private 
     sector? Or can GPO buy essentially whatever it wants from 
     whoever it wants, because it is doing so with money from 
     operating profits rather than congressionally appropriated 
     funds? Do you believe that following Federal Acquisition 
     regulations would save the GPO money?
       Response. GPO's Materials Management Acquisition Regulation 
     (MMAR) is based on the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 
     and is used as the authority for all procurements we make. 
     Under the MMAR, GPO competitively bids for the acquisition of 
     products and services used in GPO operations, including those 
     required for the production of secure credentials. GPO's 
     utilization of sole source procurement authority follows the 
     same provisions established in the FAR for other Federal 
     agencies.
       As noted earlier, under the law GPO does not generate 
     ``operating profits'' but is limited to recovering its costs. 
     Part of these costs includes the ability to generate funds 
     for investment in necessary equipment and plant improvements.

  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule and shall be considered as read.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 4487

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Legislative 
     Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for 
     other purposes, namely:

                      TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives, 
     $1,180,736,000, as follows:

                        House Leadership Offices

       For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law, 
     $22,278,891, including: Office of the Speaker, $6,645,417, 
     including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; 
     Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $2,180,048, including 
     $10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office 
     of the Minority Floor Leader, $7,114,471, including $10,000 
     for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the 
     Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, 
     $1,886,632, including $5,000 for official expenses of the 
     Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the 
     Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,459,639, including $5,000 for 
     official expenses of the Minority Whip; Republican 
     Conference, $1,505,426; Democratic Caucus, $1,487,258: 
     Provided, That such amount for salaries and expenses shall 
     remain available from January 3, 2015 until January 2, 2016.

                  Members' Representational Allowances

   Including Members' Clerk Hire, Official Expenses of Members, and 
                             Official Mail

       For Members' representational allowances, including 
     Members' clerk hire, official expenses, and official mail, 
     $554,317,732.

                          Committee Employees

                Standing Committees, Special and Select

       For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special 
     and select, authorized by House resolutions, $123,903,173: 
     Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such 
     salaries and expenses until December 31, 2016, except that 
     $2,300,000 of such amount shall remain available until 
     expended for committee room upgrading.

                      Committee on Appropriations

       For salaries and expenses of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, $23,271,004, including studies and 
     examinations of executive agencies and temporary personal 
     services for such committee, to be expended in accordance 
     with section 202(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 
     1946 and to be available for reimbursement to agencies for 
     services performed: Provided, That such amount shall remain 
     available for such salaries and expenses until December 31, 
     2016.

                    Salaries, Officers and Employees

       For compensation and expenses of officers and employees, as 
     authorized by law, $171,344,864, including: for salaries and 
     expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including the positions 
     of the Chaplain and the Historian, and including not more 
     than $25,000 for

[[Page 6655]]

     official representative and reception expenses, of which not 
     more than $20,000 is for the Family Room and not more than 
     $2,000 is for the Office of the Chaplain, $24,009,473; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 
     including the position of Superintendent of Garages and the 
     Office of Emergency Management, and including not more than 
     $3,000 for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $11,926,729 of which $4,344,000 shall remain available until 
     expended; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Chief Administrative Officer including not more than $3,000 
     for official representation and reception expenses, 
     $113,100,000, of which $4,000,000 shall remain available 
     until expended; for salaries and expenses of the Office of 
     the Inspector General, $4,741,809; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of General Counsel, $1,340,987; for salaries 
     and expenses of the Office of the Parliamentarian, including 
     the Parliamentarian, $2,000 for preparing the Digest of 
     Rules, and not more than $1,000 for official representation 
     and reception expenses, $1,952,249; for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House, 
     $4,087,587, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the completion of the House Modernization 
     Initiative; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the 
     Legislative Counsel of the House, $8,892,975, of which 
     $540,000 shall remain available until expended for the 
     completion of the House Modernization Initiative; for 
     salaries and expenses of the Office of Interparliamentary 
     Affairs, $814,069; for other authorized employees, $478,986.

                        Allowances and Expenses

       For allowances and expenses as authorized by House 
     resolution or law, $285,620,336, including: supplies, 
     materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims, 
     $4,152,789; official mail for committees, leadership offices, 
     and administrative offices of the House, $190,486; Government 
     contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and 
     other applicable employee benefits, $256,635,776, to remain 
     available until March 31, 2016; Business Continuity and 
     Disaster Recovery, $16,217,008 of which $5,000,000 shall 
     remain available until expended; transition activities for 
     new members and staff, $3,737,000, to remain available until 
     expended; Wounded Warrior Program $2,500,000, to remain 
     available until expended; Office of Congressional Ethics, 
     $1,467,030; and miscellaneous items including purchase, 
     exchange, maintenance, repair and operation of House motor 
     vehicles, interparliamentary receptions, and gratuities to 
     heirs of deceased employees of the House, $720,247.

                       Administrative Provisions

       Sec. 101. (a) Requiring Amounts Remaining in Members' 
     Representational Allowances To Be Used for Deficit Reduction 
     or To Reduce the Federal Debt.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any amounts appropriated under this Act for 
     ``HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Salaries and Expenses--Members' 
     Representational Allowances'' shall be available only for 
     fiscal year 2015. Any amount remaining after all payments are 
     made under such allowances for fiscal year 2015 shall be 
     deposited in the Treasury and used for deficit reduction (or, 
     if there is no Federal budget deficit after all such payments 
     have been made, for reducing the Federal debt, in such manner 
     as the Secretary of the Treasury considers appropriate).
       (b) Regulations.--The Committee on House Administration of 
     the House of Representatives shall have authority to 
     prescribe regulations to carry out this section.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term ``Member 
     of the House of Representatives'' means a Representative in, 
     or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.

                   delivery of bills and resolutions

       Sec. 102.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to deliver a printed copy of a bill, joint 
     resolution, or resolution to the office of a Member of the 
     House of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) unless the Member requests a 
     copy.

                    delivery of congressional record

       Sec. 103.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to deliver a printed copy of any version of the 
     Congressional Record to the office of a Member of the House 
     of Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress).

            limitation on amount available to lease vehicles

       Sec. 104.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of 
     Representatives to make any payments from any Members' 
     Representational Allowance for the leasing of a vehicle, 
     excluding mobile district offices, in an aggregate amount 
     that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any month.

           limitation on printed copies of u.s. code to house

       Sec. 105.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide an aggregate number of more than 50 
     printed copies of any edition of the United States Code to 
     all offices of the House of Representatives.

                              JOINT ITEMS

       For Joint Committees, as follows:

                        Joint Economic Committee

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Economic Committee, 
     $4,203,000, to be disbursed by the Secretary of the Senate.

                      Joint Committee on Taxation

       For salaries and expenses of the Joint Committee on 
     Taxation, $10,004,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.
       For other joint items, as follows:

                   Office of the Attending Physician

       For medical supplies, equipment, and contingent expenses of 
     the emergency rooms, and for the Attending Physician and his 
     assistants, including:
       (1) an allowance of $2,175 per month to the Attending 
     Physician;
       (2) an allowance of $1,300 per month to the Senior Medical 
     Officer;
       (3) an allowance of $725 per month each to three medical 
     officers while on duty in the Office of the Attending 
     Physician;
       (4) an allowance of $725 per month to 2 assistants and $580 
     per month each not to exceed 11 assistants on the basis 
     heretofore provided for such assistants; and
       (5) $2,486,000 for reimbursement to the Department of the 
     Navy for expenses incurred for staff and equipment assigned 
     to the Office of the Attending Physician, which shall be 
     advanced and credited to the applicable appropriation or 
     appropriations from which such salaries, allowances, and 
     other expenses are payable and shall be available for all the 
     purposes thereof, $3,371,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives.

             Office of Congressional Accessibility Services

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Congressional 
     Accessibility Services, $1,387,000, to be disbursed by the 
     Secretary of the Senate.

                             CAPITOL POLICE

                                salaries

       For salaries of employees of the Capitol Police, including 
     overtime, hazardous duty pay, and Government contributions 
     for health, retirement, social security, professional 
     liability insurance, and other applicable employee benefits, 
     $286,500,000 of which overtime shall not exceed $23,425,000 
     unless the Committee on Appropriations of the House and 
     Senate are notified, to be disbursed by the Chief of the 
     Capitol Police or his designee.

                            general expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Capitol Police, including 
     motor vehicles, communications and other equipment, security 
     equipment and installation, uniforms, weapons, supplies, 
     materials, training, medical services, forensic services, 
     stenographic services, personal and professional services, 
     the employee assistance program, the awards program, postage, 
     communication services, travel advances, relocation of 
     instructor and liaison personnel for the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center, and not more than $5,000 to be 
     expended on the certification of the Chief of the Capitol 
     Police in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses, $61,459,000, to be disbursed by the Chief 
     of the Capitol Police or his designee: Provided, That, 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the cost of basic 
     training for the Capitol Police at the Federal Law 
     Enforcement Training Center for fiscal year 2015 shall be 
     paid by the Secretary of Homeland Security from funds 
     available to the Department of Homeland Security.

                          OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses of the Office of Compliance, as 
     authorized by section 305 of the Congressional Accountability 
     Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1385), $3,959,000, of which $450,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2016: Provided, 
     That not more than $500 may be expended on the certification 
     of the Executive Director of the Office of Compliance in 
     connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses.

                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For salaries and expenses necessary for operation of the 
     Congressional Budget Office, including not more than $6,000 
     to be expended on the certification of the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office in connection with official 
     representation and reception expenses, $45,700,000.

                        ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

                         General Administration

       For salaries for the Architect of the Capitol, and other 
     personal services, at rates of pay provided by law; for 
     surveys and studies in connection with activities under the 
     care of the Architect of the Capitol; for all necessary 
     expenses for the general and administrative support of the 
     operations under the Architect of the Capitol including the 
     Botanic Garden; electrical substations of the Capitol, Senate 
     and House office buildings, and other facilities under the 
     jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol; including 
     furnishings and office equipment; including not more than 
     $5,000 for official reception and representation expenses, to 
     be expended as the Architect of the Capitol may approve; for 
     purchase or exchange, maintenance, and operation of a 
     passenger motor vehicle, $91,555,000.

[[Page 6656]]



                            Capitol Building

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol, $53,126,000, of which $28,817,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2019.

                            Capitol Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for care and improvement of 
     grounds surrounding the Capitol, the Senate and House office 
     buildings, and the Capitol Power Plant, $11,993,000, of which 
     $2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2019.

                         House Office Buildings

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the House office buildings, $71,622,000, of 
     which $7,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 
     2019.
       In addition, for a payment to the House Historic Buildings 
     Revitalization Trust Fund, $70,000,000, to remain available 
     until expended.

                          Capitol Power Plant

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Capitol Power Plant; lighting, heating, 
     power (including the purchase of electrical energy) and water 
     and sewer services for the Capitol, Senate and House office 
     buildings, Library of Congress buildings, and the grounds 
     about the same, Botanic Garden, Senate garage, and air 
     conditioning refrigeration not supplied from plants in any of 
     such buildings; heating the Government Printing Office and 
     Washington City Post Office, and heating and chilled water 
     for air conditioning for the Supreme Court Building, the 
     Union Station complex, the Thurgood Marshall Federal 
     Judiciary Building and the Folger Shakespeare Library, 
     expenses for which shall be advanced or reimbursed upon 
     request of the Architect of the Capitol and amounts so 
     received shall be deposited into the Treasury to the credit 
     of this appropriation, $93,152,000, of which $8,686,000 shall 
     remain available until September 30, 2019: Provided, That not 
     more than $9,000,000 of the funds credited or to be 
     reimbursed to this appropriation as herein provided shall be 
     available for obligation during fiscal year 2015.

                     Library Buildings and Grounds

       For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and 
     structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library 
     buildings and grounds, $41,733,000, of which $16,542,000 
     shall remain available until September 30, 2019.

            Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds, and Security

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of buildings, grounds and security enhancements of 
     the United States Capitol Police, wherever located, the 
     Alternate Computer Facility, and AOC security operations, 
     $19,486,000, of which $1,000,000 shall remain available until 
     September 30, 2019.

                             Botanic Garden

       For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and 
     operation of the Botanic Garden and the nurseries, buildings, 
     grounds, and collections; and purchase and exchange, 
     maintenance, repair, and operation of a passenger motor 
     vehicle; all under the direction of the Joint Committee on 
     the Library, $15,022,946, of which $5,122,946 shall remain 
     available until September 30, 2019: Provided, That of the 
     amount made available under this heading, the Architect of 
     the Capitol may obligate and expend such sums as may be 
     necessary for the maintenance, care and operation of the 
     National Garden established under section 307E of the 
     Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1989 (2 U.S.C. 2146), 
     upon vouchers approved by the Architect of the Capitol or a 
     duly authorized designee.

                         Capitol Visitor Center

       For all necessary expenses for the operation of the Capitol 
     Visitor Center, $20,875,000.

                        Administrative Provision

                                 scrims

       Sec. 1001.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used for scrims containing photographs of building 
     facades during restoration or construction projects performed 
     by the Architect of the Capitol.

                          LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Library of Congress not 
     otherwise provided for, including development and maintenance 
     of the Library's catalogs; custody and custodial care of the 
     Library buildings; special clothing; cleaning, laundering and 
     repair of uniforms; preservation of motion pictures in the 
     custody of the Library; operation and maintenance of the 
     American Folklife Center in the Library; activities under the 
     Civil Rights History Project Act of 2009; preparation and 
     distribution of catalog records and other publications of the 
     Library; hire or purchase of one passenger motor vehicle; and 
     expenses of the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board not 
     properly chargeable to the income of any trust fund held by 
     the Board, $424,057,000, of which not more than $6,000,000 
     shall be derived from collections credited to this 
     appropriation during fiscal year 2015, and shall remain 
     available until expended, under the Act of June 28, 1902 
     (chapter 1301; 32 Stat. 480; 2 U.S.C. 150) and not more than 
     $350,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 
     2015 and shall remain available until expended for the 
     development and maintenance of an international legal 
     information database and activities related thereto: 
     Provided, That the Library of Congress may not obligate or 
     expend any funds derived from collections under the Act of 
     June 28, 1902, in excess of the amount authorized for 
     obligation or expenditure in appropriations Acts: Provided 
     further, That the total amount available for obligation shall 
     be reduced by the amount by which collections are less than 
     $6,350,000: Provided further, That of the total amount 
     appropriated, not more than $12,000 may be expended, on the 
     certification of the Librarian of Congress, in connection 
     with official representation and reception expenses for the 
     Overseas Field Offices: Provided further, That of the total 
     amount appropriated, $8,231,000 shall remain available until 
     expended for the digital collections and educational 
     curricula program.

                            Copyright Office

                         salaries and expenses

       For all necessary expenses of the Copyright Office, 
     $54,303,000, of which not more than $27,971,000, to remain 
     available until expended, shall be derived from collections 
     credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2015 under 
     section 708(d) of title 17, United States Code: Provided, 
     That the Copyright Office may not obligate or expend any 
     funds derived from collections under such section, in excess 
     of the amount authorized for obligation or expenditure in 
     appropriations Acts: Provided further, That not more than 
     $5,611,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal 
     year 2015 under sections 111(d)(2), 119(b)(2), 803(e), 1005, 
     and 1316 of such title: Provided further, That the total 
     amount available for obligation shall be reduced by the 
     amount by which collections are less than $33,582,000: 
     Provided further, That not more than $100,000 of the amount 
     appropriated is available for the maintenance of an 
     ``International Copyright Institute'' in the Copyright Office 
     of the Library of Congress for the purpose of training 
     nationals of developing countries in intellectual property 
     laws and policies: Provided further, That not more than 
     $6,500 may be expended, on the certification of the Librarian 
     of Congress, in connection with official representation and 
     reception expenses for activities of the International 
     Copyright Institute and for copyright delegations, visitors, 
     and seminars: Provided further, That notwithstanding any 
     provision of chapter 8 of title 17, United States Code, any 
     amounts made available under this heading which are 
     attributable to royalty fees and payments received by the 
     Copyright Office pursuant to sections 111, 119, and chapter 
     10 of such title may be used for the costs incurred in the 
     administration of the Copyright Royalty Judges program, with 
     the exception of the costs of salaries and benefits for the 
     Copyright Royalty Judges and staff under section 802(e).

                     Congressional Research Service

                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses to carry out the provisions of 
     section 203 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 
     U.S.C. 166) and to revise and extend the Annotated 
     Constitution of the United States of America, $106,095,000: 
     Provided, That no part of such amount may be used to pay any 
     salary or expense in connection with any publication, or 
     preparation of material therefor (except the Digest of Public 
     General Bills), to be issued by the Library of Congress 
     unless such publication has obtained prior approval of either 
     the Committee on House Administration of the House of 
     Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration 
     of the Senate.

             Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped

                         salaries and expenses

       For salaries and expenses to carry out the Act of March 3, 
     1931 (chapter 400; 46 Stat. 1487; 2 U.S.C. 135a), 
     $50,429,000: Provided, That of the total amount appropriated, 
     $650,000 shall be available to contract to provide newspapers 
     to blind and physically handicapped residents at no cost to 
     the individual.

                        Administrative Provision

               reimbursable and revolving fund activities

       Sec. 1101. (a) In General.--For fiscal year 2015, the 
     obligational authority of the Library of Congress for the 
     activities described in subsection (b) may not exceed 
     $203,058,000.
       (b) Activities.--The activities referred to in subsection 
     (a) are reimbursable and revolving fund activities that are 
     funded from sources other than appropriations to the Library 
     in appropriations Acts for the legislative branch.

                       GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

                   Congressional Printing and Binding

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For authorized printing and binding for the Congress and 
     the distribution of Congressional information in any format; 
     expenses necessary for preparing the semimonthly and session 
     index to the Congressional Record, as authorized by law 
     (section 902 of title 44, United States Code); printing and 
     binding of Government publications authorized by law to be 
     distributed to Members of Congress; and printing, binding, 
     and distribution of

[[Page 6657]]

     Government publications authorized by law to be distributed 
     without charge to the recipient, $79,736,000: Provided, That 
     this appropriation shall not be available for paper copies of 
     the permanent edition of the Congressional Record for 
     individual Representatives, Resident Commissioners or 
     Delegates authorized under section 906 of title 44, United 
     States Code: Provided further, That this appropriation shall 
     be available for the payment of obligations incurred under 
     the appropriations for similar purposes for preceding fiscal 
     years: Provided further, That notwithstanding the 2-year 
     limitation under section 718 of title 44, United States Code, 
     none of the funds appropriated or made available under this 
     Act or any other Act for printing and binding and related 
     services provided to Congress under chapter 7 of title 44, 
     United States Code, may be expended to print a document, 
     report, or publication after the 27-month period beginning on 
     the date that such document, report, or publication is 
     authorized by Congress to be printed, unless Congress 
     reauthorizes such printing in accordance with section 718 of 
     title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That any 
     unobligated or unexpended balances in this account or 
     accounts for similar purposes for preceding fiscal years may 
     be transferred to the Government Printing Office revolving 
     fund for carrying out the purposes of this heading, subject 
     to the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the 
     House of Representatives and Senate: Provided further, That 
     notwithstanding sections 901, 902, and 906 of title 44, 
     United States Code, this appropriation may be used to prepare 
     indexes to the Congressional Record on only a monthly and 
     session basis.

                 Office of Superintendent of Documents

                         salaries and expenses

                     (including transfer of funds)

       For expenses of the Office of Superintendent of Documents 
     necessary to provide for the cataloging and indexing of 
     Government publications and their distribution to the public, 
     Members of Congress, other Government agencies, and 
     designated depository and international exchange libraries as 
     authorized by law, $31,500,000: Provided, That amounts of not 
     more than $2,000,000 from current year appropriations are 
     authorized for producing and disseminating Congressional 
     serial sets and other related publications for fiscal years 
     2013 and 2014 to depository and other designated libraries: 
     Provided further, That any unobligated or unexpended balances 
     in this account or accounts for similar purposes for 
     preceding fiscal years may be transferred to the Government 
     Printing Office revolving fund for carrying out the purposes 
     of this heading, subject to the approval of the Committees on 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate.

               Government Printing Office Revolving Fund

       For payment to the Government Printing Office Revolving 
     Fund, $11,348,000, to remain available until expended, for 
     information technology development and facilities repair: 
     Provided, That the Government Printing Office is hereby 
     authorized to make such expenditures, within the limits of 
     funds available and in accordance with law, and to make such 
     contracts and commitments without regard to fiscal year 
     limitations as provided by section 9104 of title 31, United 
     States Code, as may be necessary in carrying out the programs 
     and purposes set forth in the budget for the current fiscal 
     year for the Government Printing Office Revolving Fund: 
     Provided further, That not more than $7,500 may be expended 
     on the certification of the Public Printer in connection with 
     official representation and reception expenses: Provided 
     further, That the revolving fund shall be available for the 
     hire or purchase of not more than 12 passenger motor 
     vehicles: Provided further, That expenditures in connection 
     with travel expenses of the advisory councils to the Public 
     Printer shall be deemed necessary to carry out the provisions 
     of title 44, United States Code: Provided further, That the 
     revolving fund shall be available for temporary or 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, but at rates for individuals not more 
     than the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such 
     title: Provided further, That activities financed through the 
     revolving fund may provide information in any format: 
     Provided further, That the revolving fund and the funds 
     provided under the headings ``Office of Superintendent of 
     Documents'' and ``Salaries and Expenses'' may not be used for 
     contracted security services at the Government Printing 
     Office's passport facility in the District of Columbia.

                    GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

                         Salaries and Expenses

       For necessary expenses of the Government Accountability 
     Office, including not more than $12,500 to be expended on the 
     certification of the Comptroller General of the United States 
     in connection with official representation and reception 
     expenses; temporary or intermittent services under section 
     3109(b) of title 5, United States Code, but at rates for 
     individuals not more than the daily equivalent of the annual 
     rate of basic pay for level IV of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5315 of such title; hire of one passenger motor 
     vehicle; advance payments in foreign countries in accordance 
     with section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; benefits 
     comparable to those payable under sections 901(5), (6), and 
     (8) of the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 4081(5), 
     (6), and (8)); and under regulations prescribed by the 
     Comptroller General of the United States, rental of living 
     quarters in foreign countries, $519,622,000: Provided, That, 
     in addition, $23,750,000 of payments received under sections 
     782, 3521, and 9105 of title 31, United States Code, shall be 
     available without fiscal year limitation: Provided further, 
     That this appropriation and appropriations for administrative 
     expenses of any other department or agency which is a member 
     of the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum or a Regional 
     Intergovernmental Audit Forum shall be available to finance 
     an appropriate share of either Forum's costs as determined by 
     the respective Forum, including necessary travel expenses of 
     non-Federal participants: Provided further, That payments 
     hereunder to the Forum may be credited as reimbursements to 
     any appropriation from which costs involved are initially 
     financed.

                        Administrative Provision


                      center for audit excellence

       Sec. 1201.  (a) Center for Audit Excellence.--
       (1) Establishment.--Chapter 7 of title 31, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subchapter:

             ``SUBCHAPTER VII--CENTER FOR AUDIT EXCELLENCE

     ``Sec. 791. Center for audit excellence

       ``(a) Establishment.--The Comptroller General shall 
     establish, maintain, and operate a center within the 
     Government Accountability Office to be known as the `Center 
     for Audit Excellence' (hereafter in this subchapter referred 
     to as the `Center').
       ``(b) Purpose and Activities.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Center shall build institutional 
     auditing capacity and promote good governance by providing 
     affordable, relevant, and high-quality training, technical 
     assistance, and products and services to qualified personnel 
     and entities of governments (including the Federal 
     government, State and local governments, tribal governments, 
     and governments of foreign nations), international 
     organizations, and other private organizations.
       ``(2) Determination of qualified personnel and entities.--
     Personnel and entities shall be considered qualified for 
     purposes of receiving training, technical assistance, and 
     products or services from the Center under paragraph (1) in 
     accordance with such criteria as the Comptroller General may 
     establish and publish.
       ``(c) Fees.--
       ``(1) Permitting charging of fees.--The Comptroller General 
     may establish, charge, and collect fees (on a reimbursable or 
     advance basis) for the training, technical assistance, and 
     products and services provided by the Center under this 
     subchapter.
       ``(2) Deposit into separate account.--The Comptroller 
     General shall deposit all fees collected under paragraph (1) 
     into the Center for Audit Excellence Account established 
     under section 792.
       ``(d) Gifts of Property and Services.--The Comptroller 
     General may accept and use conditional or non-conditional 
     gifts of property (both real and personal) and services 
     (including services of guest lecturers) to support the 
     operation of the Center, except that the Comptroller General 
     may not accept or use such a gift if the Comptroller General 
     determines that the acceptance or use of the gift would 
     compromise or appear to compromise the integrity of the 
     Government Accountability Office.
       ``(e) Sense of Congress Regarding Personnel.--It is the 
     sense of Congress that the Center should be staffed primarily 
     by personnel of the Government Accountability Office who are 
     not otherwise engaged in carrying out other duties of the 
     Office under this chapter, so as to ensure that the operation 
     of the Center will not have a negative impact on the ability 
     of the Office to maintain a consistently high level of 
     service to Congress.

     ``Sec. 792. Account

       ``(a) Establishment of Separate Account.--There is 
     established in the Treasury as a separate account for the 
     Government Accountability Office the `Center for Audit 
     Excellence Account', which shall consist of the fees 
     deposited by the Comptroller General under section 791(c) and 
     such other amounts as may be appropriated under law.
       ``(b) Use of Account.--Amounts in the Center for Audit 
     Excellence Account shall be available to the Comptroller 
     General, in amounts specified in appropriations Acts and 
     without fiscal year limitation, to carry out this subchapter.

     ``Sec. 793. Authorization of Appropriations

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out this subchapter.''.
       (2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     7 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following:

              ``subchapter vii--center for audit excellence

``791. Center for Audit Excellence.

[[Page 6658]]

``792. Account.
``793. Authorization of appropriations.''.
       (b) Approval of Business Plan.--The Comptroller General may 
     not begin operating the Center for Audit Excellence under 
     subchapter VII of chapter 7 of title 31, United States Code 
     (as added by subsection (a)) until--
       (1) the Comptroller General submits a business plan for the 
     Center to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives and Senate; and
       (2) each such Committee approves the plan.

                OPEN WORLD LEADERSHIP CENTER TRUST FUND

       For a payment to the Open World Leadership Center Trust 
     Fund for financing activities of the Open World Leadership 
     Center under section 313 of the Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 1151), $3,420,000.

   JOHN C. STENNIS CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

       For payment to the John C. Stennis Center for Public 
     Service Development Trust Fund established under section 116 
     of the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Training and 
     Development Act (2 U.S.C. 1105), $430,000.

                      TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. 201.  No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall be used for the maintenance or care of private 
     vehicles, except for emergency assistance and cleaning as may 
     be provided under regulations relating to parking facilities 
     for the House of Representatives issued by the Committee on 
     House Administration and for the Senate issued by the 
     Committee on Rules and Administration.
       Sec. 202.  No part of the funds appropriated in this Act 
     shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2015 
     unless expressly so provided in this Act.
       Sec. 203.  Whenever in this Act any office or position not 
     specifically established by the Legislative Pay Act of 1929 
     (46 Stat. 32 et seq.) is appropriated for or the rate of 
     compensation or designation of any office or position 
     appropriated for is different from that specifically 
     established by such Act, the rate of compensation and the 
     designation in this Act shall be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto: Provided, That the provisions in this Act 
     for the various items of official expenses of Members, 
     officers, and committees of the Senate and House of 
     Representatives, and clerk hire for Senators and Members of 
     the House of Representatives shall be the permanent law with 
     respect thereto.
       Sec. 204.  The expenditure of any appropriation under this 
     Act for any consulting service through procurement contract, 
     under section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, shall be 
     limited to those contracts where such expenditures are a 
     matter of public record and available for public inspection, 
     except where otherwise provided under existing law, or under 
     existing Executive order issued under existing law.
       Sec. 205.  Amounts available for administrative expenses of 
     any legislative branch entity which participates in the 
     Legislative Branch Financial Managers Council (LBFMC) 
     established by charter on March 26, 1996, shall be available 
     to finance an appropriate share of LBFMC costs as determined 
     by the LBFMC, except that the total LBFMC costs to be shared 
     among all participating legislative branch entities (in such 
     allocations among the entities as the entities may determine) 
     may not exceed $2,000.
       Sec. 206.  The Architect of the Capitol, in consultation 
     with the District of Columbia, is authorized to maintain and 
     improve the landscape features, excluding streets, in the 
     irregular shaped grassy areas bounded by Washington Avenue, 
     SW on the northeast, Second Street, SW on the west, Square 
     582 on the south, and the beginning of the I-395 tunnel on 
     the southeast.
       Sec. 207.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality 
     of the United States Government, except pursuant to a 
     transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act 
     or any other appropriation Act.
       Sec. 208. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds made available to the Architect of the Capitol in 
     this Act may be used to eliminate or restrict guided tours of 
     the United States Capitol which are led by employees and 
     interns of offices of Members of Congress and other offices 
     of the House of Representatives and Senate.
       (b) At the direction of the Capitol Police Board, or at the 
     direction of the Architect of the Capitol with the approval 
     of the Capitol Police Board, guided tours of the United 
     States Capitol which are led by employees and interns 
     described in subsection (a) may be suspended temporarily or 
     otherwise subject to restriction for security or related 
     reasons to the same extent as guided tours of the United 
     States Capitol which are led by the Architect of the Capitol.
       Sec. 209.  Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
     adjustment shall be made under section 610(a) of the 
     Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (2 U.S.C. 31) 
     (relating to cost of living adjustments for Members of 
     Congress) during fiscal year 2015.


                       spending reduction account

       Sec. 210. The amount by which the applicable allocation of 
     new budget authority made by the Committee on Appropriations 
     of the House of Representatives under section 302(b) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974, excluding Senate items, 
     exceeds the amount of proposed new budget authority is $0.
       This Act may be cited as the ``Legislative Branch 
     Appropriations Act, 2015''.

  The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those 
printed in House Report 113-426. Each such amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed in the report, by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time 
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Nugent

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 7, beginning line 23, strike ``in an aggregate amount 
     that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any month'' and insert 
     ``and excluding short-term vehicle rentals in an aggregate 
     amount that does not exceed $1,000 for the vehicle in any 
     month''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Nugent) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chairman, my amendment is simple. It would end the 
practice of Members leasing vehicles on the taxpayers' dime. I am just 
not convinced that this is a necessary use of taxpayer money, and 
neither are the constituents that I represent.
  We are asking agencies throughout the Federal Government to use their 
funding carefully and to cut out unnecessary, nice-to-have things. We 
ought to apply the same standard to ourselves, and in many ways we have 
done an excellent job of doing that.
  Funding for the House of Representatives has been cut since the 
Republicans took the majority by over 14 percent. We have cut our own 
MRAs and committee funds. We have frozen our own pay.
  Unfortunately, the vehicle lease program isn't consistent in that 
effort. That is not to say that some Members who lease vehicles aren't 
doing it responsibly. They are, and they have good reason. 
Unfortunately, I think the line of what is appropriate in terms of 
leasing vehicles has been blurred by others. Members of Congress 
driving around the Capitol in luxury vehicles financed by the taxpayers 
that they represent isn't exactly the image we want to portray to the 
American people, especially when many Americans are struggling just to 
get by.
  The vehicle lease program in its current form is simply out of touch 
with the economic reality of what our American brothers and sisters 
face. Therefore, until we can ensure that all Members of Congress are 
using this program responsibly, I believe we ought to halt it entirely.
  The Senate, to their credit, in one of the few times that I agree 
with the Senate--and I don't say that often--already has barred its 
Members from leasing vehicles with public money; and, frankly, I think 
it is time that we do the same.
  To be clear, my amendment is straightforward. It says that the CAO 
may not make any payments from any Member's Representational Allowance 
for the leasing of a vehicle. My amendment excludes short-term vehicle 
rentals and mobile district offices, as those are often necessary 
resources used in serving our constituents. But having basically a 
personal car entirely paid for by taxpayers should no longer be 
allowed.
  I urge adoption of my amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. I want to begin by thanking my friend. We serve together on 
the Rules Committee. It is very seldom

[[Page 6659]]

that I would disagree with my friend, who not only has a distinguished 
record here, but a distinguished record in law enforcement.
  And let me make it clear. I am quite content to let the body work its 
will on this matter. I appreciate my friend actually bringing it 
forward. I think it is important to discuss.
  I had not really thought about this a great deal until I saw my 
friend's amendment. I don't lease a vehicle through my office at all. 
Although we have discussed it and looked at it, it just never seemed to 
be appropriate or make sense for us. We do have 63 Members, however, 
who do do this practice. The average cost of the vehicle is $589.
  Now, I can't tell you that I have taken a survey of all 63, but I 
have talked to a few--just sort of tell me what your reasoning is--and 
the responses are pretty diverse. But you could break it into two or 
three categories.
  First, some of them cover exceptionally large districts, and they 
find this the most cost-effective way to actually cover it, I mean, 
even to the point of saying, as one Member said:

       I go through rough terrain to reach remote areas. I need a 
     vehicle that, frankly, is quite a bit more robust than 
     members of my staff have or that I even have personally, 
     sometimes, to reach some of my constituents.

  I thought that was a pretty impressive reason.
  Second, others, again, just find it much more cost-effective than 
actually paying and reimbursing for mileage. But I think the core thing 
here is to trust--actually trust--the Member to make the decision.
  I think an important point here is to note that we are not going to 
save any money, really. This comes out of the Member's Representational 
Allowance as it is, so there is not a real savings here. And it is all 
publicly disclosed, so Members take some considerable risk if they do 
this. They have to be able to explain it to their constituents.
  At the end of the day, I just simply don't want to micromanage 
individual Members in how they spend the money which we allot them 
through this bill.
  And with that, I understand my good friend would like to say some 
things, so I will yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I also rise in opposition to my Florida colleague's 
amendment, which seeks to dictate to other Members how to spend their 
office budgets. It is important to note that I also do not lease a 
vehicle.
  The bill already sets a limit on what Members can spend on vehicle 
leases to ensure that costs are appropriately controlled. The Nugent 
amendment would go further and prevent long-term vehicle leases unless 
they are classified as mobile district offices.
  The problem with the gentleman from Florida's amendment is the same 
as we have had with other similar amendments in the past that have 
sought to restrict or eliminate Members' use of funds for their office 
budgets.
  We have Members that represent entire States or very large geographic 
areas. Removing transportation options for Members trying to 
effectively represent their constituents forces a one-size-fits-all 
approach to serving our congressional districts, and we know that is 
not reasonable nor does it make sense.
  The House makes statements of disbursements available to the public 
so that our constituents can judge us on the purchases that we make. 
Each Member has to answer to his or her constituents if they spend 
inappropriately or if they make purchases that are at odds with the 
sensibilities of those that sent the Member to office. We don't need to 
dictate to each other how we can most effectively do our jobs.
  With that, Madam Chair, I urge the defeat of this well-intentioned 
but misguided amendment.
  Mr. COLE. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I do appreciate the comments of more senior 
Members of this House. I, obviously, have been here 3 years, and I do 
appreciate their comments.
  But I will go back to this. Think about this. The Senate, each 
Senator represents their whole State. They gave up that privilege a 
while back because it didn't make sense. But think about this. Today, 
Members of Congress can lease Lexuses, BMWs, Infinities, Acuras, 
Mercedes, which all fall within the guidelines, and not all do that. 
But does that send a message to our folks back home that this is the 
right way to do it? Because that MRA that was discussed, this also 
covers all of the wear and tear on the car, it covers the fuel. There 
is no expense that is spared with regards to covering that, versus the 
mileage reimbursement, if I used my own car, which I do.
  That is not to try to diminish or hurt any Member. It really is, 
though, bringing us into compliance with the same thing that the Senate 
has done. It is about reasonable usage of the dollars the taxpayers 
give us.
  Once again I will tell you that I agree with most of what my good 
friends have said, but I disagree on this one. I truly believe it is 
time for this House to move forward and limit itself in regards to 
these types of acquisitions and purchases.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will be postponed.

                              {time}  1000


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Speier

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 11, line 10, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.
       Page 12, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I rise today because many Americans think 
Congress has unchecked power. They think we know how to make laws but 
don't know how to follow them. They think of us not as the House of 
Representatives but as the House of Hypocrites. I have spent a lot of 
time here on the floor speaking about sexual harassment and the 
epidemic of rape in the military and on college campuses. It is just as 
important that we bring the same scrutiny to our own House.
  The American people expect us to conduct ourselves in a manner 
befitting the responsibilities and duties that we hold as Members of 
Congress--not as if we are freshmen in a frat house. While they are the 
exception, not the rule, it is an embarrassment to this institution 
that some Members have ``sexted'' teenage pages on the floor. It is 
unacceptable that others have groped and inappropriately touched their 
staff members. This behavior is illegal and unacceptable in the private 
sector, and it is illegal and unacceptable here.
  This is not a Democratic issue, and this is not a Republican issue. 
This is a House issue. Just recall former Congressman Bob Filner. He 
pled guilty to charges of felony false imprisonment for sexually 
harassing a former aide in the San Diego's mayor's office. When Mr. 
Filner was ranking member on the Veterans' Affairs Committee in the 
House, he allegedly sexually harassed several female members of the 
Armed Forces who were rape survivors. But none of the women ever said a 
word while Mr. Filner was still here--not one.
  If you work for a private company in my home State in California, it 
is likely you have had several hours of sexual

[[Page 6660]]

harassment training to identify and prevent sexual harassment in the 
workplace because it is the law. It is also the law in California that 
State legislators and their staff participate in a mandatory sexual 
harassment training every year. But that is not the case here in the 
House.
  In fact, congressional Office of Compliance staff say that when new 
Members go through their 3-day training, they are mostly counseling 
empty seats by the end of day 3.
  Sexual harassment training is already mandatory for the executive 
branch agencies, and it has proven to result in a significant reduction 
in the number of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. 
But this training for Congress is only voluntary. The congressional 
Office of Compliance provides sexual harassment training to offices, 
but it is not typically requested until after an office reports an 
incident.
  It is time we take advantage of the valuable training the office 
provides. My staff and I actually have taken this 1\1/2\ hour training, 
and as much as I know about sexual harassment, I learned additional 
things during that training.
  Madam Chairwoman, my amendment is simple. It appropriates $500,000 in 
additional funds to the Office of Compliance to be used to enhance 
sexual harassment training programs by implementing a Web-based 
platform. These funds will also be used for outreach to inform House 
office employees what their rights are, the various forms sexual 
harassment takes, and where to go if they experience sexual harassment. 
It is time to send a new message: that we are here to serve and that we 
are not above the law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim 
the time in opposition; although, I am not opposed.
  The CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Florida is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the gentlelady from 
California's amendment, which would provide an additional $500,000 to 
the Office of Compliance. The funding is intended for the office to 
provide mandatory sexual harassment training for all congressional 
offices in the House of Representatives.
  Surveys find that anywhere from 25 to 31 percent of women in the 
United States have experienced sexual harassment at work, with the 
majority of women reporting that the harasser was a direct supervisor 
or senior to them. Sexual harassment creates counterproductive, 
hostile, and potentially dangerous working environments, not only 
threatening the emotional and physical well-being of women, but also 
women's job performance and security.
  There is no reason to think the House of Representatives is immune to 
this problem. The House of Representatives should not be exempt from 
providing proper training to identify, prevent, and report sexual 
harassment, as many private institutions undertake.
  Additionally, this type of training is already mandatory for all 
executive branch agencies. It is time that we follow suit to ensure 
that the entire Federal Government is setting a model example for 
safety and respect in the workplace.
  To that end, I have cosponsored Representative Speier's resolution, 
which amends the rules of the House to require that the mandatory 
annual ethics training offered to Members, officers, and employees of 
the House include the specific program of training in the prevention 
and deterrence of sexual harassment in employment.
  I urge support of this amendment and thank the gentlelady for her 
leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlelady from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
amendment. When I came to Congress, I was outraged by the behavior of 
some of my colleagues. In one incident, a woman Member was told to 
share a seat with a male colleague when there weren't enough chairs at 
a committee meeting.
  While there have certainly been improvements, recent events 
embarrassing this institution highlight the continued need for 
training. We cannot allow ``Mad Men''-style antics to occur in our 
offices.
  Sexual harassment training will help victims, improve awareness of 
what is not allowed, and is necessary if we want to be serious about 
stopping inappropriate acts.
  I thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment, and I encourage 
your support.
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. At this time, I would like to yield 30 seconds 
to Chairman Cole.
  Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Chairman, I just want to thank my friend from California for 
bringing this amendment. I think it is a truly important amendment and 
something that we are more than happy to accept, and appreciate her 
raising the issue very, very much.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We thank the gentleman and appreciate his 
support.
  At this time, I would like to yield the balance of our time in 
opposition, even though no one is speaking in opposition to this very 
important amendment, to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller), the 
chair of the Committee on House Administration.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Madam Chair, I thank the gentlelady for 
yielding me time, and I certainly want to thank my colleague from 
California for offering this very, very important amendment which we 
are all very supportive of.
  This amendment, as has been explained, provides additional funds to 
the congressional Office of Compliance. This is the agency that really 
is tasked with making sure that Members of Congress and--very 
importantly, most importantly--their staff are aware of what their 
individual rights are and how to protect themselves against sexual 
harassment in the workplace.
  Unfortunately, sometimes it seems like the Members might be 
protected, but perhaps their staffs are not as well aware and protected 
as they need to be. This is certainly not a partisan issue. We have 
seen incidents over the years of Republicans and of Democrats, both 
sides of the aisle here.
  Actually, Madam Chair, this week I met with senior staff at the OOC. 
I met with all the board members there. We talked about what kind of 
additional training might be helpful when we put together our new 
Members orientation program in the fall, various kinds of things that 
we can do, and, of course, they needed a little bit more cash to be 
able to really step up, particularly on the Internet and various 
things, and do awareness training. So this amendment, I think, is very 
important.
  Certainly, Madam Chair, Congress needs to be held to the highest 
standards, and, at a minimum, we ought to be held to the same standards 
that we hold private businesses to out in the marketplace and the 
workplace.
  Every employee that works on this Hill needs to work in an 
environment that they feel is free from sexual harassment, and if they 
feel threatened in any way, they need to be able to be sure that they 
understand their rights and what recourse they have to protect 
themselves without any fear of retribution. I think Congress needs to 
be a leader on this issue--a leader--and I certainly feel that by 
conducting awareness training, that will help stop any unfortunate 
situation, and if we don't stop it, certainly, then, allowing an 
individual to protect themselves. That, I think, is an important thing 
for all of us.
  So, again, I thank the gentlelady from California for offering the 
amendment, and I would urge all my colleagues to support this 
amendment.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chairman, I also yield back the

[[Page 6661]]

balance of my time and thank the gentlelady from California for her 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 2, after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $3,166,946)''.
       Page 32, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,166,946)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chairwoman, I rise today to speak in favor of my 
simple and straightforward amendment. My amendment would reduce funding 
to the United States Botanic Garden to the levels appropriated in 
fiscal year 2014. That money would then be transferred to the Spending 
Reduction Account so that we could take one more step towards reining 
in Federal spending.
  I would be the first to say that I appreciate the Botanic Garden and 
its beauty. I believe it is a good program, and I am personally 
interested in botany. But Members of Congress are often faced with 
difficult choices, especially given our current fiscal crisis. There 
are programs that are constitutionally mandated, and other programs 
that are nice but are not constitutionally mandated. This is one 
program that is nice but cannot be immune from the fiscal pressures 
facing our government.
  While the Botanic Garden is a wonderful attraction, Congress must 
seek to limit excessive spending in the name of getting our fiscal 
house in order. No line item can be overlooked in making these 
assessments and decisions, including our own office budgets, as we have 
demonstrated.
  Madam Chairwoman, so many families are tightening their belts during 
these trying economic times. Congress must do the same and make cuts 
where it can.
  I am concerned that the Architect of the Capitol has proposed over 
$5.1 million in new capital projects at the Botanic Garden this year. 
Rather than making minor repairs to a few small leaks in the roof, the 
Architect of the Capitol is proposing to tear down the entire roof and 
replace it with something called a new vegetative roofing system. At a 
time of soaring deficits and with the Federal debt in excess of $17 
trillion, such expenditures are especially wasteful, and we shouldn't 
be wasting precious taxpayer money on a new, state-of-the-art 
vegetative roofing system.
  My proposed amendment is a fair cut. It does not gut the program but 
merely rolls back the appropriations back to 2014 levels. My amendment 
still allows for almost $2 million in new capital projects and repairs 
to take place in fiscal year 2015.
  A note about vegetative roofs. They are usually at least twice the 
cost to install and require a much higher maintenance cost, and in some 
cases have unintended consequences by attracting wildlife into urban 
areas, as an example, geese. I ask each Member to vote in favor of the 
Gosar amendment.
  Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment which 
seeks to cut over $3 million from the Architect of the Capitol's 
Botanic Garden--the people's Botanic Garden.
  Now, I understand the gentleman from Arizona is trying to generate 
headlines by attempting to cut much-needed funding to one of the most 
beloved destinations in Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, but 
this is not the way to fix our Nation's deficit.
  Over 200 years ago, George Washington had a vision for our Capital 
City to include a botanic garden that would demonstrate and promote the 
important role plant life plays in our Nation. It may seem trivial, but 
the Botanic Garden, established in 1820, is one of the oldest botanic 
gardens in the United States. It is also one of the most visited 
destinations on the Capitol complex. In fact, I know it is my own 
children's favorite place to visit when they come to Washington, D.C., 
and often our first stop.
  Our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real 
solutions to the deficit, not to try to score cheap political points by 
attacking important institutions that have already taken a fiscal hit, 
like the Botanic Garden.
  The gentleman says that no line-item or opportunity can be looked 
over when it comes to reducing our deficit. Yet, I urge the gentleman 
if he is looking for ways to significantly reduce our deficit, to urge 
the House Republican leadership to address comprehensive immigration 
reform, which would result in a $900 million reduction in the deficit 
over the next 20 years. Going after a garden isn't the answer.
  In fact, I think it is important to note that since President Obama 
took office, our deficit has been cut by more than 50 percent as a 
percentage of our GDP.
  With that, I urge the Members to defeat this ill-advised amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to 
thank my friend too because I know the spirit in which this is brought 
is to save money and to make some tough decisions, and I share that. It 
is worth pointing out that we did reduce the Architect's request by $79 
million.

                              {time}  1015

  Frankly, we are spending about $40 million less than we did last 
year, so it is not as if we have not been serious about this. We did 
look at this particular area. My friend from Florida made the point 
that not only is it a well-traveled destination point and very 
desirable place, but it is a pretty old building, and we really do have 
serious problems here that we think are potentially health hazards.
  We have chunks of the building, 5-15 pounds, that have fallen off 
from the height of 40 feet, and that is a health hazard; so given the 
traffic there, given the fact that we have been pretty tough across the 
board, we thought this was one of those urgent priorities that needed 
to be taken care of.
  Again, I have no qualms with my friend's motives. I know he is trying 
to save money. I share that belief. We have made a lot of tough 
decisions across the board, and it is certainly appropriate for this 
body to look, and if people can find areas, we are happy with that.
  In this case, our judgment as a committee--and certainly my 
judgment--is that we need to make certain that a facility that is this 
well used is kept safe and in good repair, so we don't risk liability 
and risk injury and, frankly, that we do keep open and functioning one 
of the most beloved institutions of the Capitol complex.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page 6662]]

  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 15, line 13, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $243,000)''.
       Page 32, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $243,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Broun) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, the bill under consideration today 
is probably the smallest appropriations bill that we see each year, at 
least in terms of the number of dollars involved.
  It funds the operations of the legislative branch--both the 
operational expenses of the congressional offices and the expenses 
which occur in protecting and maintaining Capitol grounds.
  This bill decreases in several places, and it holds the line on a 
number of accounts as well. In total, the bill provides funding which 
is in line with the amount provided just last year. I commend the 
Appropriations Committee for this. However, there are also a number of 
increases found within the bill.
  Earlier this week, I submitted amendments to the Rules Committee, all 
of which were meant to target accounts which received seemingly 
inexplicable increases. I have been allowed one amendment today, only 
one, which would decrease funding for the Capitol Visitor Center by 
$243,000 and move the same amount to the spending reduction account.
  This move would result in the Visitor Center funding being equal to 
the amount which was appropriated last year, just keeping it at the 
same level.
  The Capitol Visitor Center opened to the public in December of 2008, 
and according to the Congressional Research Service, it cost more than 
$600 million to complete. While the Visitor Center received about $65 
million in private donations, the rest of its cost was borne by 
taxpayers.
  Madam Chairman, it has been less than 10 years since the Visitor 
Center has opened, at considerable public expense. I think, given our 
current fiscal state, we can certainly afford to level fund the Visitor 
Center, hold the line, and use this increase, while just a small one, 
to help reduce our Federal deficit. I urge my colleagues to support my 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment cuts the small 
inflationary increase of $243,000 provided to the Capitol Visitor 
Center in this bill. This small increase is needed for the Capitol 
Visitor Center to keep up with inflation in order to provide the same 
level of service to our constituents next year as they are providing 
this year. When is enough enough?
  My colleague must not be aware that the Capitol Visitor Center is 7 
percent below the funding level that they were in fiscal year 2010. 
They have already contributed their fair share to deficit reduction.
  If my colleague is serious about reducing the national debt and the 
deficit, then I would suggest that he stop voting to repeal the 
Affordable Care Act because the recent CBO estimate is that there would 
be a net increase of $109 billion to the deficit between 2013 and 2022 
if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
  Perhaps he can call on his own leadership to reduce the deficit by 
$900 million by taking up and passing comprehensive immigration reform.
  When I was chair of this subcommittee, I inherited a fiscal disaster 
in cost overruns during the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. 
We were collaboratively and in a bipartisan way able to bring that 
project in for a soft landing and slow the hemorrhaging of Federal 
funds for a project that a Republican majority began.
  Now, we recognized that the responsible thing was to ensure that this 
facility had the tools necessary to succeed, so that our visitors could 
have an informative and welcoming space to visit their government and 
to understand our democracy, so it baffles me that we would see an 
amendment that goes after the very organization that interacts with our 
constituents nearly every day.
  I want those working in the Capitol Visitor Center to know that we 
appreciate the work they do. They are essential to the experience our 
constituents have when visiting our Nation's Capitol. With that, I urge 
defeat of the amendment.
  Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, first, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, 
and I want to thank my friend too because I know he is very serious 
about looking for places to cut costs. Indeed, later on, there are a 
number of items that Members have brought to our attention that we will 
accept. In this case, we don't think it is appropriate.
  I do want to thank my friend from Florida. I happened to be on this 
committee as a junior Member when she did do, I think, an unbelievably 
good job in working us through what had been a bad process and cost 
overruns in the Center.
  At the end of the day, this is where millions of Americans--this is 
their portal to the Capitol. It is well run, and it is well managed. I 
think maintaining access and keeping it safe and keeping it welcoming, 
if you will, is very important.
  So while this is a legitimate question to raise, I agree with my 
friend and would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I didn't realize with this 
amendment that we were going to get into debate about the unaffordable, 
uncaring act, so-called ObamaCare. Actually, I have the solution.
  We have been promised that if you like your doctor, you can keep your 
doctor. We have been promised that if you like your insurance, you can 
keep your insurance. We know both of those are not factual.
  We know both of those were known by the President when he made those 
claims to America, that he knew that they were not factual also. I am 
just waiting for the President to come out with this claim: if you like 
your gun, you can keep your gun.
  Before getting back to the appropriations process, let me, to just 
finish up--and that is, I have the solution. It is called the Patient 
Option Act. It will actually make everybody's health insurance in this 
country less expense.
  It will provide access to good quality health care for all Americans, 
and it will save Medicare from going broke. It has been endorsed by the 
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, as well as 
FreedomWorks, and it will solve the problems that we all face of an 
out-of-control health care cost system burden that has been placed on 
us by a government that has intruded into the health care system 
itself.
  Madam Chairman, this country expects us to make cuts. We are spending 
money we don't have. We are borrowing 40 cents on every dollar that we 
spend, and we just have to stop spending money we don't have. We have 
to restore fiscal sanity to the government. That is what I will 
continue to do as a Member of Congress, as long as I am here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, as a breast cancer survivor and 
one of the 129 million Americans who live in this country with a 
preexisting condition, I am thankful for the Affordable Care Act and 
the peace of mind it established on January 1 when, never again, an 
insurance company in this country could drop us or deny us coverage, 
the coverage that the gentleman from Georgia has repeatedly voted to 
take away from millions of Americans.
  This amendment would cut the Capitol Visitor Center by $243,000, when 
we need to make sure that they have the cost of inflation increase, so 
they can continue to provide the good service that they provide to our 
constituents, so we can continue to educate Americans and everyone 
around the world

[[Page 6663]]

about the finest democracy in the world.
  Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Broun).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will be postponed.


                  Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Duffy

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 29, line 7, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $3,420,000)''.
       Page 32, line 21, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $3,420,000)''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chair, first, I want to commend the work of both Mr. 
Cole and Ms. Wasserman Schultz in producing a spending bill that 
doesn't actually increase spending. It doesn't actually reduce it, but 
it actually maintains it; and for this institution, I think that is a 
positive, and I commend you both for doing that.
  I think it is important, when we talk a lot about our debt at $17 
trillion--we have deficits at $1.5 trillion today, down to a little 
over $600 billion, I think it is important that this institution lead 
by example and look to places that we can cut, places that we can be 
more efficient, when we look at spending on operations here in the 
House.
  When we do that, I think it is important to look at duplicative 
programs, programs that accomplish the same mission through multiple 
agencies.
  I would submit to this Chamber that one of those is the Open World 
Leadership Center. This program--its purpose is to engage emerging 
leaders from post-Soviet countries by exposing them to American 
cultural institutions. I would argue it has outlived its usefulness.
  Listen, it is great that we should engage others from around the 
world. We should engage their leaders. I think that can help bridge the 
gap.
  The problem with this program is that, since 2000, it has cost the 
American taxpayer $150 million; but not only that, we have nearly 90 
programs that try to accomplish this very same mission, just to name a 
few in the State Department: the National Endowment for Democracy, the 
International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute, 
and USAID, all with this same mission.
  So I think this is a space where we can eliminate this program. The 
mission can still be accomplished with other agencies, and we can move 
over $3 million to deficit reduction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend. Again, I appreciate 
the spirit in which he approaches this. This is an interesting point of 
discussion because we actually have Members of both parties who really 
like this program and think it is very important, and we have Members 
of both parties that share your point of view. It is not a partisan 
debate in the least.
  I would say that there are a number of both contemporary points and a 
number of longer-term points that ought to be taken into account.

                              {time}  1030

  First, this was originally a $6 million item. We have cut it by 43 
percent aimed at Russia. All the other participants in this program are 
the very countries that Russia threatens right now; particularly 
Ukraine, which is the second largest participant. I think it would be a 
really bad signal for this country to actually cut programs that are 
supportive of democracy in the areas immediately around Russia and, 
frankly, I think more or less plays into Mr. Putin's hand.
  Beyond that, we have a unique institution, a unique arrangement, and 
a unique person heading it at the Library of Congress, Mr. Billington, 
who is probably the world's most expert on Russian history, culture, 
and literature. This has been well placed, as long as he has been the 
librarian, and well used.
  So, again, I appreciate my friend's motives, but I would urge the 
rejection of his amendment.
  With that, I would like to yield the remainder of the time that I 
have to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chairman, I could not agree more with my good friend 
from Oklahoma, the chairman of this subcommittee, the idea that my 
colleague from Wisconsin would suggest that this program has outlived 
its usefulness when the Russian bear is hungrier than it has been in 
decades, when Putin seized Crimea and now he is trying to take parts of 
eastern Ukraine.
  Let me explain what this program does. It takes emerging leaders in 
Russia and Russia's satellite countries, former members of the Soviet 
Union, who show exceptional talent and interest in speaking for 
themselves and it brings them over to the United States and puts them 
in homes and communities where they will learn how our rule of law 
works, what equal justice under the law means in a truly democratic 
country. It shows them how to participate in the democratic process. It 
shows them how we have taken the works of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky and 
Solzhenitsyn and we have implemented them in a country that respects 
individualism and puts individualism higher than statism. It is a 
direct threat to communism. It is a direct threat to Mr. Putin. Because 
if you do this, Mr. Putin can't keep his $60 billion he has taken from 
corruption. He can't continue to make his people dependent upon the 
state. This is disruptive to him. It is a direct threat to him. That is 
why it is important.
  Haven't we done enough for Mr. Putin's interests to cut this program 
by 43 percent by preventing these young emerging leaders from being 
able to come over to this country? Do we now have to deny Ukrainian 
leaders the ability to gain an understanding of what a country that is 
not corrupt, of what a country that respects individualism, respects 
democracy, respects equal justice under the law is all about?
  That is what this program is all about. We spend half a trillion 
dollars on our military, and yet programs like this will accomplish 
more for sustainability of peace among nations by giving an opportunity 
for people to speak for themselves, to speak out for the rule of law, 
to speak against corruption. That is what we as a nation want. We don't 
want to dominate anybody else. We want to be an instrument of our 
values and our vision. We want to be that beacon of light and hope for 
other nations. This is one of the ways in which we achieve that 
objective. A small amount of money, but an enormously valuable 
contribution to world peace.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DUFFY. Madam Chairman, with all due respect, to those who may 
disagree with this amendment--I am seeing some bipartisan agreement; I 
know I have some bipartisan disagreement with this amendment--but to my 
colleagues, there are 90 programs that are aimed at accomplishing the 
very same mission. When do we come forward and say: Listen, let's cut 
this back; let's cut it back a little bit? The bridge isn't cut off, 
but we have other programs that are doing the same thing.
  Listen, we want to talk about what is going on in Ukraine and want to 
talk about what is going on in Russia. This program didn't exist in the 
1980s. Ronald Reagan didn't have this program to

[[Page 6664]]

tear down the Soviet Union. He did it with strong leadership. So to 
come to this institution and say: Listen, the $3.4 million in this 
program is going to stop the aggression of Putin, no. Strong leadership 
will, though. This is about when do we come together as an institution 
and find programs that are duplicative, programs that we can look and 
say: This can be scaled back and we can look to one of the other 89 
programs to accomplish this same mission.
  There is a constituency around every dollar. That is why it is so 
hard in this town to scale back because everyone will come forward and 
go: But no, no, no; this dollar is so important. And people come from 
our communities and go: No, don't cut back.
  We are $1.7 trillion in debt. This is unsustainable. So let's come 
together and find this program that we can cut and look to the other 89 
that can accomplish the same mission, which I think is a noble mission.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy).
  The amendment was rejected.


                  Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Hall

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to deliver a printed copy of the report of 
     disbursements for the operations of the House of 
     Representatives under section 106 of the House of 
     Representatives Administrative Reform Technical Corrections 
     Act (2 U.S.C. 5535) to the office of a Member of the House of 
     Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank my good friend 
Chairman Cole and the Appropriations Committee for allowing me to offer 
this amendment in conjunction with Congressman McCaul. My amendment 
today simply prohibits the Statement of Disbursements of the House from 
being distributed the old-fashioned way--through print.
  A lot of people say I am old-fashioned and I am behind the times, but 
I have a Facebook account, I tweet, and just this week my congressional 
Web site was singled out for the Silver Mouse Award, placing it in the 
top 6 percent of all congressional Web sites for transparency, ease of 
use, and accessibility of constituent services.
  Right now, the Chief Administrative Officer of the House distributes 
441 copies of its three-volume Statement of Disbursements to the House 
at a cost of well over $300,000 per year. This quarterly public report 
of all reports and expenditures for U.S. House of Representatives 
Members, committees, leadership, officers, and offices was more than 
2,400 pages long in its last edition. Multiply that by 441, and you 
have 100,000 pages of printed material, all of which can easily be 
accessed on the CAO's Web site.
  To be clear, my amendment does nothing to prohibit the CAO from 
making the Statement of Disbursements of the House available online to 
Members as they currently do. But if I can learn to communicate 
electronically, I sure don't see why the Federal Government can't do 
the same thing.
  Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to accept this amendment.
  You certainly aren't behind the times. You are usually ahead of the 
curve.
  In this case, the gentleman certainly is. I appreciate him pointing 
out an area where we can save $300,000. He is precisely right on this. 
We are more than happy to accept the amendment and, again, very much 
appreciate our friend for bringing it to the floor and for saving the 
American taxpayers $300,000.
  Mr. HALL. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Wenstrup

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to deliver to the office of a Member of the House of 
     Representatives (including a Delegate or Resident 
     Commissioner to the Congress) a printed copy of the Daily 
     Calendar of the House of Representatives which is prepared by 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Wenstrup) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Chairman, I rise in support today of amendment 
No. 7.
  My amendment is simple. It would eliminate the daily delivery of 
printed copies of the House Calendar to Member offices.
  This multipage paper booklet is currently delivered each legislative 
day to 441 Representatives' offices. The document in my hand is about 
100 pages, meaning that about 44,000 pages are wasted each legislative 
day, over 5 million pages a year.
  The information in these pages is readily available online, and, as 
required, paper copies will be kept on record. Previously, the House 
took similar action by ending paper deliveries of the Congressional 
Record a few years ago with no adverse effects.
  Let's be honest, Madam Chairman, no one sits and peruses the calendar 
every day. Most offices accept the delivery, turn 90 degrees, and place 
it in the recycling bin. Hardly a good use of time or precious paper.
  Ending this outdated practice also saves money. We can save 
hardworking taxpayers nearly $200,000 a year, according to the 
Government Printing Office.
  Madam Chairman, I want to note that this idea came from one of my 
staff members, Kate Raulin, who repeatedly recycles these Calendars and 
grew frustrated at the waste she saw every day. Imagine if every staff 
member of this body had an idea or an amendment that would save the 
taxpayers about $200,000 a year. By my back-of-the-napkin calculations, 
those savings would easily top over a billion dollars a year.
  When I worked in the private sector, we had to be mindful of excess 
costs and waste. The government must be held to the same standard and 
should reform outdated policies. We should not remain stuck in the 
past. If the daily cost of delivery came out of each Member's personal 
office budget, how many of us would actually pay to get this delivered 
every day?
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and vote ``yea.''
  Mr. COLE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WENSTRUP. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend for bringing this 
to the floor. He is precisely right in everything that he says about 
both the costs and the functionality of the document in question.
  His staff member is to be commended for bringing it to his attention 
and for you acknowledging her. I think staff people every place are 
grateful. We are delighted to accept this amendment, delighted to save 
the money, and, again, appreciate our friend bringing it to our 
attention, pointing it out, and saving the taxpayers $200,000.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup).

[[Page 6665]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in 
House Report 113-426.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 211.  There is appropriated, for salaries and expenses 
     of the Office of Technology Assessment as authorized by the 
     Technology Assessment Act of 1972 (2 U.S.C. 471 et seq.), 
     hereby derived from the amount provided in this Act for the 
     payment to the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust 
     Fund, $2,500,000.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 557, the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  For 23 years, Congress had an insightful nonpartisan agency aimed at 
providing Members of Congress and their staff with expert advice on the 
technological aspects of public policy. It was called the Office of 
Technology Assessment. From 1972 to 1995, it produced reports on topics 
that were striking in their relevance even today: computer software 
security, disposal of chemical weapons, teaching with technology, 
bioenergy, and many more. OTA was part of Congress, understood the 
congressional process; it spoke the language of Congress, and it looked 
at the technological aspects of a large variety of issues and provided 
clarity where it was needed.

                              {time}  1045

  Congress turned out the lights on the OTA in 1995 with the thought 
that congressional agencies like CRS, GAO, also universities and 
private industry would fill the void. They have not. In the years since 
the OTA was defunded, our need for its work has grown only more acute. 
Too often, we have considered or not considered legislation in 
ignorance of the technological factors.
  That is why I am introducing an amendment to restore some funding to 
the OTA. My amendment would reallocate to the OTA $2.5 million 
appropriated for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust 
Fund, about 1.4 percent of the surplus in that trust fund. During its 
23 years, the OTA produced an amazingly high return on investment, with 
hundreds of millions of dollars in savings.
  A study on Agent Orange helped save the government $10 million. An 
OTA report was the source of recommendations for upgrades in the 
computer system of the Social Security Administration that led to a 
savings of more than $300 million. Studies on the synfuels helped save, 
literally, billions of dollars.
  When Congress stopped receiving the OTA's counsel, technological 
topics didn't become less relevant in the political process; they just 
became less understood, and scientific thinking lost its toehold on 
Capitol Hill, with troubling consequences for the ways we legislate on 
all issues, not just on those that are explicitly scientific.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment in order to give Congress a 
tool that we desperately need to do the people's work with clarity and 
reason.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, my friend is, frankly, one of the most 
thoughtful and best Members of this body. There is no question about 
that. So, when we discussed this, I took it very seriously because it 
was my friend's proposal, and I think any other Member in this House 
would do the same. At the end of the day, I came to a different 
conclusion for a number of reasons.
  First, we are in a very tight budget. We have no increase at all, so 
funding this initiative means effectively taking money away from 
someplace else. Second, I looked at the long-term spending pattern of 
this program in the past. It actually peaked at $20 million, so I think 
starting at $2.5 million is not likely where it will end up over time. 
Third, quite frankly, I looked at what some of my predecessors in my 
position had thought, both Republican and Democratic. As my friend 
knows, obviously, the Democrats had the majority after 1995 for a 4-
year period, which was relatively recently, and they looked at this and 
came to the same decision that was made in '95, and that, I think, we 
make today, which is that there are other sources of information. The 
Government Accountability Office, in particular, has developed a 
capability here, and we think there are other sources of information.
  While I don't deny that this has played a useful role in the past, I 
just believe, given the constrained circumstances that we have today, 
given the possibility that this will grow, and given what at least to 
date has been a bipartisan judgment that this is something we didn't 
need to renew, I, reluctantly, decided not to include this in the bill. 
For that reason, I would also oppose the amendment.
  I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz), my good friend, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch 
Subcommittee.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman, regretfully, because I 
know how passionate the gentleman from New Jersey is about this 
important issue.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well-intentioned 
amendment, which seeks to add $2.5 million to reestablish the Office of 
Technology Assessment, which did have an important scope of work for 
Congress during its existence in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the 
amendment takes the funding from the House Historic Buildings 
Revitalization Trust Fund. This fund is critical for the long-term 
maintenance for such items as the Cannon House Office Building's 
rehabilitation, which is an ongoing project that has already begun. The 
fund was established so we could bank resources over several years for 
the revitalization of our House office buildings and stave off cost 
overruns that have plagued previous projects.
  I have been a supporter of the Office of Technology Assessment dating 
back to my time as chair of this subcommittee. In fact, in fiscal years 
2008-2010, I included $2.5 million in this bill within the Government 
Accountability Office for activities similar in scope to the work of 
OTA's. I also supported an identical amendment offered by Mr. Holt in 
fiscal year 2012, as the Cannon project had not yet commenced, but now 
that it has, I cannot support an amendment in good conscience that 
would take critical resources from a fund that supports ongoing 
rehabilitation projects on the Capitol complex. Perhaps, had the 
gentleman found another source for his funding, we could have been 
supportive.
  I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue, but I urge 
Members to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Washington State (Mr. McDermott), who observed the OTA 
in action in his time here in Congress.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Chairman, I was one of the 16 people who was on 
that committee. It used to be a committee with four Republicans from 
the Senate and four Republicans from the House, four Democrats from the 
Senate and four Democrats from the House. It was a balanced committee. 
It looked at the technological questions of what we are spending 
billions of dollars on.
  Now we have a choice of where we get our information. The GAO looks 
backward. All of the government organizations look backward. They don't 
look forward. That is not their role to imagine what will happen out 
there. What we need is an organization that can look forward as we 
proceed to spend billions of dollars in technology. We can either get 
the information from a nonpartisan organization that is controlled 
evenly by both sides of the House and the other body, or we could go to 
industry. They will come in here,

[[Page 6666]]

and they will give us all of the information of their having the best 
thing since sliced bread.
  I think we need the OTA, and I urge you to adopt the amendment.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend, a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, someone who has also observed the OTA in 
practice.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank my friend representing Princeton, New Jersey, who 
has a doctorate in physics, who is a ``Jeopardy!'' award winner, who 
is, perhaps, one of the most academically advanced Members of the 
Congress. It is interesting that he is the one who knows enough to know 
what we don't know in this Congress. My concern is that many of us 
don't know enough to know what we don't know.
  Madam Chairman, the size of computers is shrinking by about 50 
percent every couple of years, and their capacity--their power and 
their speed--is doubling, yet we can't understand the implications of 
that, which applies to all of our constituencies. We just mandated that 
30 percent of the energy that the military spends, which is billions of 
dollars, has to be from non-carbon-polluting forms of energy. Do we 
know whether that is achievable? We just committed yesterday $11 
billion for computer interoperability for electronic medical records.
  We have to understand the implications of our decisions, and the OTA 
helps us to be able to do that.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, in closing, for almost a quarter of a 
century, the OTA was one of the most respected, productive, cost-
efficient agencies we have seen, producing comprehensive reports for 
the House and the Senate on issues related to health care policy, 
agricultural production, telecommunications, space policy, electronic 
surveillance, national defense, and much more. It prevented decisions 
made in ignorance, and ignorance is expensive.
  My friend from Oklahoma and also the ranking member, the gentlelady 
from Florida, talked about cost. What we are talking about here is 
finding the low-hanging fruit on making government more efficient. That 
is what the OTA did. That is what the OTA would do. This is the last 
Legislative Branch appropriations I will be dealing with. I know the 
OTA. I worked as a staffer on Capitol Hill. I saw that it works. I saw 
how much it elevated the debate here on Capitol Hill. It saves taxpayer 
money. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Again, I want to thank my friend because I know he is, 
indeed, committed to this idea.
  In closing, Madam Chair, I think, as usual, my friend Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz probably made the salient point of the debate. We are taking 
from our historic trust fund, which preserves this building, and 
redirects that resource. That is a mistake. That is just simply a 
mistake. If there is another way to fund it, I would still have grave 
reservations about reintroducing it because I do think the information 
is available elsewhere, but robbing from your seed corn, I think, is 
something we shouldn't do.
  We have established this fund. We have been able to maintain it under 
Democrats and Republicans alike. We are going to have these challenges 
going forward. I do not want to set the precedent of this becoming a 
piggy bank to fund other things out of. We need to maintain our campus. 
This is an important way to do it, and I think weakening it in any way 
would be counterproductive.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey will be 
postponed.


                       Announcement by the Chair

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now 
resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-426 on which 
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Nugent of Florida.
  Amendment No. 3 by Mr. Gosar of Arizona.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Broun of Georgia.
  Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Holt of New Jersey.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Nugent

  The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 196, 
noes 221, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 188]

                               AYES--196

     Amodei
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     Delaney
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Esty
     Farr
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foster
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Israel
     Jenkins
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kilmer
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meng
     Messer
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rokita
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder

                               NOES--221

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)

[[Page 6667]]


     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Speier
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Whitfield
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Enyart
     Frelinghuysen
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     McAllister
     McCollum
     McIntyre
     Miller (FL)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Stockman

                              {time}  1126

  Mr. CRAWFORD, Ms. HANABUSA, Messrs. WALBERG, ROGERS of Michigan, and 
GRIFFIN of Arkansas changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. NOEM, Messrs. COURTNEY, TONKO, SCOTT of Virginia, LUETKEMEYER, 
GRAVES of Missouri, CAMP, GOHMERT, ROKITA, BURGESS, and Mrs. BLACK 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Gosar

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 219, 
noes 198, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 189]

                               AYES--219

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Himes
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--198

     Amodei
     Bachus
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dent
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Roby
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Becerra
     Enyart
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Hurt
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Miller (FL)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Stockman
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1132

  Mr. DELANEY changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HURT. Madam Chair, I was not present for rollcall vote No. 189. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


            Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Broun) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.

[[Page 6668]]

  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 207, 
noes 212, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 190]

                               AYES--207

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirkpatrick
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gerlach
     Gibson
     Granger
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Roby
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roybal-Allard
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Becerra
     Enyart
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Miller (FL)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Stockman

                              {time}  1136

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Holt

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Holt) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 164, 
noes 248, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 191]

                               AYES--164

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Matheson
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--248

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Fincher

[[Page 6669]]


     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Amodei
     Becerra
     Coble
     Enyart
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Kaptur
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Miller (FL)
     Negrete McLeod
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Speier
     Stockman
     Tsongas
     Waters

                              {time}  1141

  Ms. KELLY of Illinois changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hultgren) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4487) 
making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, and, pursuant to 
House Resolution 557, she reported the bill back to the House with 
sundry amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the 
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. RUIZ. I am opposed in its current form, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Ruiz moves to recommit the bill H.R. 4487 to the 
     Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 2, line 11, strike ``$1,180,736,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,181,236,000''.
       Page 5, line 16, strike ``$285,620,336'' and insert 
     ``$286,120,336''.
       Page 6, line 2 (relating to amounts made available for the 
     Wounded Warrior Program), strike ``$2,500,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,000,000''.
       Page 19, line 12 (relating to amounts made available for 
     Books for the Blind and Physically Handicapped), strike 
     ``$50,429,000'' and insert ``$50,696,000''.
       Page 22, line 16 (relating to amounts made available for 
     the Government Printing Office Revolving Fund), strike 
     ``$11,348,000'' and insert ``$10,581,000''.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. COLE (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  Mr. HOYER. Objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which 
will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If adopted, the 
bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended.
  Here in Congress, we wrestle with some of the hardest choices about 
the future of our great Nation, but sometimes these choices are very 
easy. Some choices cut across party lines, define our values as 
Americans, and give us an opportunity to stand together and fight for 
what is important.
  The easy choice today is to either fund more wasteful and outdated 
printing services or fund the Wounded Warrior Program. The Wounded 
Warrior Program in Congress provides paid fellowships for injured 
veterans to work in congressional offices across the country to help 
serve other veterans and gain work experience as they assimilate back 
into civilian life.
  There has never been a more important time for the heroes who have 
defended our country to play these pivotal roles in shaping our laws. I 
have the honor of working with a Wounded Warrior fellow in my office, 
and I have seen firsthand their dedication and greatness.
  Chris Rennick is a marine from the 1st Battalion in Twentynine Palms, 
California, who served in Iraq. He was raised on a farm by his 
godparents, Linda and David Matheny. Mr. Matheny always told him, 
``Chris, do your best,'' and that is exactly what Chris did.
  He deployed twice with the United States Marine Corps. His first was 
with the ``tip of the spear'' in the first invasion of Iraq in 2003. 
Chris was injured in an IED blast in his first deployment and still 
returned to Iraq for a second tour in 2004, and again was injured in an 
IED explosion.
  Chris served honorably and received the Good Conduct Medal, the 
Combat Action Medal, and the Iraq Expeditionary Medal. Chris' unit 
received the Presidential Unit Citation.
  After serving in the Marines, Chris came home and dealt with a 
traumatic brain injury and posttraumatic stress disorder. He told me he 
was in a bad place. He struggled to hold down three jobs while caring 
for himself. It was a fellow veteran in the Wounded Warrior battalion 
who reached out and helped Chris get back on track. Now Chris does the 
same for others, as a Wounded Warrior fellow.
  Chris joined the Wounded Warrior Program because he still firmly 
believes in the Marine Corps motto, ``Semper Fidelis,'' always 
faithful. Chris remains always faithful to his brothers in arms and to 
this day is always faithful to our great country that he sacrificed 
for.
  In his short time with my office, less than 1 year, Chris has helped 
over 300 veterans in my district alone receive the benefits that they 
have earned and get the care that they need. Chris' passion for helping 
veterans is an inspiration for me and, I know, for all of you, and that 
is the reason why we must fully fund the Wounded Warrior Program.
  My motion to recommit would fund the Wounded Warrior Program with 30

[[Page 6670]]

slots for both Republicans and Democrats by redirecting $767,000 from 
the Government Printing Office. Additionally, it would provide $267,000 
for Books for the Blind and Handicapped. We can do all of this with no 
new spending.
  So the choice today is clear and it is easy: Would you rather fund 
more printed outdated copies of the Congressional Record and House 
legislative calendar, or would you rather support our Wounded Warrior 
fellows like Chris?
  This institution and this entire country needs heroes' voices like 
Chris' in every decision that we make. I urge you to vote ``yes'' and 
support our veterans and those with disabilities by supporting these 
critical programs.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, after spending the last few hours debating and 
amending this bill, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation 
that funds this House, its safety, and the agencies that support the 
legislative process, and all in a fiscally responsible and, frankly, 
bipartisan way.
  Yesterday, in nearly a unanimous fashion, this House passed a bill 
that provided nearly $4 billion in funding that directly supports and 
assists our wounded warriors, and I think most all of us on both sides 
of the aisle are proud of that.
  This includes $2.6 billion for the Prosthetic and Sensory Aids 
Service, $560 million for the largest system of spinal cord injury of 
care in the United States, and $135 million to assist blind and 
visually impaired veterans. It also includes $96 million for research 
that benefits wounded warriors in areas like prosthetics, traumatic 
brain injury, spinal cord injuries, and the like.
  The total medical care budget of the VA for FY15 is $59.1 billion, 
enough to care for 6.7 million patients and, again, is something that I 
think every Member in this House ought to be proud of and was more than 
delighted to support.
  This legislation, as with all appropriations legislation that we 
bring to the floor, makes every stride to ensure that the very best 
care for our wounded warriors and veterans is available. I know that I 
speak for this entire body when I say we deeply respect and respect the 
service and sacrifices of our troops and veterans and that the bill we 
passed yesterday is hard-and-fast proof of that.
  Frankly, had we wanted to do more, I would suggest that yesterday 
would have been the time to do more because, clearly, everybody was 
willing to support that measure.
  Keep in mind, the bill before us now is the smallest of the 12 
appropriations bills, but it is still incredibly important; and 
advancing this bill gets us one step closer to completing our necessary 
work, our constitutional duty of funding the Federal Government.
  Motions to recommit like this one, quite frankly, are mostly 
political ``gotcha'' tactics, and both sides do it. I cast no partisan 
stones here. I have seen it happen on this floor many, many times 
before. But I think both sides probably ought to stop and reflect if we 
are really honoring the veterans or if we are using them to make a 
political point. I would hope not the latter, because yesterday we did 
the right thing; today we are trying to score points at one another's 
expense.
  Yes, both sides have done this. I am sorry it happens. My personal 
opinion is that it shouldn't, and I hope we will dispense with it going 
forward.
  The bill in front of us has bipartisan support. If it is allowed to 
proceed, it will pass overwhelmingly.
  Over the past 2 days, we have done some great work, kicking off the 
appropriations process at the earliest date in decades and passing our 
first bill yesterday with overwhelming support from both sides of the 
aisle. Let's continue that good work today. Let's pass this bill. Let's 
reject the motion to recommit. Let's get the work of the people done.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 194, 
noes 222, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 192]

                               AYES--194

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--222

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon

[[Page 6671]]


     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Becerra
     Coble
     Enyart
     Franks (AZ)
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Miller (FL)
     Negrete McLeod
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Stockman

                              {time}  1202

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 402, 
nays 14, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 193]

                               YEAS--402

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Holding
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kirkpatrick
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Lankford
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                                NAYS--14

     Amash
     Broun (GA)
     Duncan (TN)
     Engel
     Franks (AZ)
     Green, Gene
     Holt
     Jones
     Labrador
     Massie
     Matheson
     Rogers (AL)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Wittman

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Becerra
     Coble
     Enyart
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Matsui
     McCollum
     Miller (FL)
     Negrete McLeod
     Payne
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Schwartz
     Stockman

                              {time}  1208

  Mr. RANGEL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 193, please let the record 
show that my vote on final passage would have been a ``yes.'' Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                          Personal Explanation

  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, due to the devastating impact of 
recent flooding in my district, I missed the following rollcall votes: 
No. 188-193 on May 1, 2014. If present, I would have voted: rollcall 
vote No. 188--Nugent of Florida Amendment to H.R. 4487, ``aye,'' 
rollcall vote No. 189--Gosar of Arizona Amendment to H.R. 4487, 
``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 190--Broun of Georgia Amendment to H.R. 
4487, ``aye,'' rollcall vote No. 191--Holt of New Jersey Amendment to 
H.R. 4487, ``nay,'' rollcall vote No. 192--H.R. 4487, Motion to 
Recommit, ``nay,'' rollcall vote No. 193--H.R. 4487, Legislative Branch 
Appropriations Act, 2015, ``aye.''

                          ____________________