July 21, 2011: Congressional Record publishes “LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012”

Volume 157, No. 110 covering the 1st Session of the 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012” mentioning the Environmental Protection Agency was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H5348-H5372 on July 21, 2011.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of H.R. 2551 pursuant to House Resolution 359, the following amendments be permitted to be offered out of the specified order:

Amendment No. 9 by Mr. Moran;

Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Holt.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

General Leave

Mr. CRENSHAW. 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 H.R. 2551 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 359 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. 2551.

{time} 1929

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. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Woodall 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 Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) each will control 30 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the funding bill for the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch of the Appropriations Committee for 2012.

Everybody knows that we are in the midst of some very difficult economic times. I don't need to tell the Members that we have had deficits of over $1 trillion for the last couple of years. I don't need to tell people that we've had about $4 trillion added to our national debt in the last 2\1/2\ years. We all know that we have $14 trillion of national debt, and that equals our entire economy.

{time} 1930

The one thing that everyone would agree on is that we just can't keep spending like that. That's just not sustainable. Everyone says that. So we bring this bill in the midst of that kind of discussion, and we want to try to do our part in getting a handle on the way we spend money around this place. We want to try to stop this culture of spending and turn it into a culture of savings.

So when we bring this bill, this Legislative Branch appropriations bill, it will spend 6.4 percent less than last year. That's $227 million. It will spend 14.2 percent less than what was requested, that's $474 million.

Now, it's our best effort to keep the commitment that we're going to try to do things more efficiently and more effectively than we have before. How do we do that? Well, we listen to the facts. We had eight formal hearings. We had numerous informal hearings. We listened, we set priorities, we made some tough choices, and we have the bill before us.

I certainly want to thank the members of the subcommittee for their involvement, for their participation, for their hard work, for their input. And a special word of thanks to Mike Honda from California, the ranking member, who was involved in the process all along the way and knows the difficult choices that we had to make.

I certainly want to thank our staff, both the majority and minority staff. A lot of times we go home at night and they stay and keep on working, and they helped us get to where we are today to have this final product.

Now, let me just give you some of the highlights of this bill.

If you look at the legislative branch, about 36 percent of the spending goes to the House of Representatives. That's where we are tonight. Half of the money that goes to the House goes to what we call Members' representational accounts, the so-called MRAs. And so we thought that since we've asked every agency in the Federal Government to rein in spending, we've asked them all to tighten their belt, to do more with less, to be more efficient than they ever have been before, we've subjected them to this kind of scrutiny, and we thought it would only be fair to apply that same process to us. That's why the MRAs in this House are reduced by 6.4 percent. All of the committee staff budgets, they are reduced by 6.4. The leadership budgets are reduced by 6.4 percent.

Now, those MRAs, that's money that's taxpayers' money. We have it available to us to run our offices. We can hire staff. We can lease space. We can buy equipment. We can do a lot of things. We have a lot of discretion.

Now, some people say we shouldn't cut the MRAs. Some people say we cut them too much, that we can't continue to do our job. Well, it seems to me that if we're going to ask every other agency of the Federal Government to do more with less, then we've got to look at our own selves, and that's what we've done here. We've said that we want to lead by example. We want to share in the sacrifice that everyone is sharing throughout the Federal Government. And that's why we did what we did.

Some people say, well, we might have to fire somebody. Again, Members have the money available to them. They can decide how they want to spend it. If they want to have lots of staff, they can have lots of staff. If they want to send lots of mail out, they can send lots of mail out. The MRAs even allow Members to lease a car. There will be an amendment later on to say you can't lease a car if it costs more a thousand dollars a month.

So when you hear people say this is going to make it very difficult for us to do our job, I think what it's going to do is make us as Members be more responsible, be more efficient, set the right priorities and continue to do our job. Because some people say we ought to cut even more.

But I would say that if you look at the facts, we've cut this legislative branch funding by 9 percent over the last 2 years. We cut the MRAs again. Last year we cut them 5 percent. The Appropriations Committee was cut by 9 percent last year. And so I think we've struck a balance between doing more with less, being more efficient, and yet being able to do the things that we need to do in a very efficient and a very safe manner.

Now, there are other agencies that we oversee, and some are extensions of the House, so to speak. The Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, these are agencies that provide service to the Members of this body. And as extensions of the House, we felt like they should be subject to the same scrutiny that we were. Their budgets are going to be reduced by 6.4 percent as well. That means they are going to have to be a little smarter, set priorities, work more efficiently.

Actually, as Members, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to be more judicious in the things that we ask from these agencies. Sometimes we just willy-nilly say, I want a report here, I want a report there. We need to decide what we really need and what we don't necessarily need, and I think they will be able to continue to do the job that they've been doing all along to supply us with the information we need to be effective Members of this body.

We also oversee the Library of Congress, a wonderful historic building that you can see from this House of Representatives. Very important to us. Their budget has been reduced. They are working with us to make sure that they can continue to provide the services that we need.

We oversee the Architect of the Capitol. He's charged with overseeing over a million square feet of offices all across this Capitol Hill. His budget is being cut, and he's got a list of the projects he needs to do. He's set a priority there, and he will do what needs to be done, but he'll make sure that he doesn't impair the health and the safety of any Members of this House, any staff, or the people that work on the Hill.

We reduced the budget of the Government Printing Office.

Finally, we oversee the Capitol Police. And a lot has been said about our ability to make sure that we're safe in this area. We didn't reduce the spending for the Capitol Police. We recognize that security is not a luxury; it's something that we need. But we also realize that Members can be more diligent, we can be more aware.

What we learned from this situation in Arizona with our fellow Congresswoman is that our service is not without risk, but many of the things that we need to do from a security standpoint have to do with our own common sense, our own awareness, our own diligence.

So we provide the Capitol Police with the money that they need to not only make sure that we are safe in this House, our staff, and those that work in the Capitol complex are safe, but also the millions of Americans that come here, to make sure they're safe as well.

So I think, Mr. Chairman, we have a bill that strikes the right balance. We recognize the difficult times we're in. We've taken the money we have available. We've set priorities. We made some tough choices. And I think this bill represents some fiscally responsible savings that will allow us to continue to do our job, to do it in a safe and efficient manner. As we have put all of these agencies around the Federal Government under this scrutiny to see if they can do things more efficiently, we have not exempted ourselves.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY11.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY11.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY11.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH21JY11.004

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by thanking Chairman Crenshaw, the Appropriations majority staff, and his personal staff for the professionalism shown during this process. While it is not the bill I would have written, it is the process that I would have followed.

As for the bill, the legislative branch minus the Senate is being cut by 6.4 percent from fiscal year 2011 and 9 percent from fiscal year 2010. These cuts are being done while we had to fix a $13 million hole for the Capitol Police because of their accounting mistake in fiscal year 2010.

I believe these cuts are harmful to our Members' ability to serve their constituents and to the House's responsibility to provide effective oversight.

The budget allocation is what one could expect given the majority is also cutting women and children's nutrition programs, consumer protection, and other important programs in other bills. The only thing this bill has succeeded in doing, however, is joining the other flawed bills by cutting at the expense of jobs, strong oversight, and commonsense efficiencies. Maybe with this bill, the smallest of all 12, and the one that funds our Members' own operations, the majority will see the real-life impacts of these cuts, one of which is not real deficit reduction.

This bill will cut the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent, including a reduction of over 300 employees, 50 of whom will be cut from our much relied-upon Congressional Research Service. Members should ask their staff how often they use CRS staff for research, particularly in responding to questions and concerns from their constituents.

This bill would cut the Government Printing Office by 16 percent, an agency already planning to let go of 330 employees. There is language encouraging the privatization of GPO's activities, which could make it more expensive for Congress to operate.

The Government Accountability Office, or GAO, is cut by 6.4 percent. Every $1 spent at GAO results in $4 in taxpayer savings. This begs the question, is it the majority's priority to not save taxpayers money? Those who claim to want increased oversight of government programs should reject cuts to GAO. They are known as Congress' watchdog, and that watchdog should have teeth.

We have heard that some Members' offices are furloughing staff to meet the 5 percent cut to the Members' Representational Allowance, or MRA, in 2011. Now this bill will further cut MRAs by 6.4 percent. Cuts to the MRA means cuts to Members' day-to-day abilities to effectively represent our and their constituents. From the staff assistant answering calls from our constituents to the caseworker helping Grandma recover her lost Social Security check, all of these services are funded through MRA. Each office would lose on the average of $88,000, which would mean two to three staffers per office.

In what world does laying people off recover the economy? The cut-

and-grow mantra does not work in the economy as a whole. It certainly will not work in the corridors of Congress. I hope the Members of this body understand that agencies we rely on will have to deny or severely limit services provided to Members' offices because there are fewer people to handle requests. I would say to my colleagues, remember these cuts the next time you have requests of GAO, the Architect of the Capitol, Congressional Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office.

Beyond that, after the tragic shooting of our friend and colleague Gabby Giffords in Tucson, we were told to increase security in our district offices. But how are we supposed to pay for all of it? Certainly not out of our office budgets that are being whacked, not from the Capitol Police who are flat-funded, and not from the Sergeant at Arms, whose budget is cut 10 percent.

I have a great deal of respect for Chairman Crenshaw. There are not many things that he could have done differently with the allocation he had to work under. I hope we rethink trying to balance the budget by cutting services to the people who sent us here, our constituents. We can and must do better, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the chairman for yielding the time.

I rise today to commend H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act for the legislative branch.

Mr. Chairman, this is the sixth appropriations bill that we will have passed through the House out of 12 bills that will be considered. Three more of the 12 bills are waiting, queued up to come before the House. But this is the sixth. This will make us halfway through the appropriations bills for 2012.

I want to commend Chairman Crenshaw and Mr. Honda for their hard work and the blood-curdling decisions they've had to make, because this bill deals with our colleagues and us and the operation of this body that we all love. This bill will help stop government overspending starting in our own backyards. If we're trying to get back on a more sustainable course, we've got to cut spending wherever we can, and we've got to make due with less. Our constituents asked us to get our own fiscal house in order, and we're leading by example with this legislation.

This legislation prioritizes the safety of the thousands of people who work in and visit the Capitol Complex every day, providing essential funding for the Capitol Police, services for our visitors, and necessary maintenance. But we are keeping to our commitment to reduce spending, and so we've cut back in other areas. We've trimmed the House leadership, Member, and committee budgets by over 6 percent. This legislation provides smaller budgets for our own offices and continues our goal of reducing spending across the entire Federal Government.

To demonstrate my commitment to savings and to prove the feasibility of reduced budgets, earlier this year, we directed that my very own committee, the Appropriations Committee, cut its budget not by the 5 percent that all other committees cut. We said, We'll see your 5 percent and ask for 4 more; and we cut our budget by 9 percent. And this bill continues that reduction, trimming another 6.4 percent. So since January of this year, the Appropriations Committee, when this bill is finished, will have cut its own budget by some 15.4 percent. Just as American families are forced to live within their means, their Representatives in Washington should do the same.

I understand that many of my colleagues are concerned about what these cuts might mean for their own offices. I know making these hard decisions will not be easy for them, just as they were not easy for us to make in the first place. But these cuts are necessary. We can't ask everyone else to make cuts to their budgets and not do the same to ourselves. We all have to share in the sacrifice during this financial crisis, and I'm proud that we're doing our part to help our Nation dig itself out of dangerous job-killing debt so that we can get our economy back on track.

Again, I want to commend Chairman Crenshaw and Ranking Member Honda and their staffs on a strong bill that makes these responsible reductions, and I urge our colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the beautiful State of Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. DICKS. I thank the ranking member, the gentleman from California, for yielding to me, and I would like to thank Chairman Crenshaw, Chairman Rogers, and the staff on both sides for what they have been able to do to accommodate some of the priorities of Democratic Members as they have assembled the bill.

This bill would fund the legislative branch, minus the Senate, at

$3.3 billion. This represents a 6.4 percent reduction from fiscal year 2011 and a 9 percent reduction from fiscal year 2010.

I appreciate the overview that Congressman Honda has provided. And at this point, I would simply like to join him in expressing serious concern on behalf of our colleagues regarding security for our district offices and for official events involving Members as well as the general public. After the tragic shooting in Tucson, the Congress was left to reevaluate security in Members' districts. While it is of utmost importance to ensure that citizens continue to have access to their Representatives in Congress, the Tucson event is a reminder that we must be vigilant in providing security to Members, to our staffs, and to our constituents who attend our events.

The effort by the House to improve district security after the shooting put much of the burden on the Members' offices, including the payment for that security. As Members' office budgets are being cut for the second time in a year, there has to be reconsideration of that policy, perhaps with an eye towards a more centralized approach to security.

While we have not seen specific estimates of the costs involved here, it would clearly represent a substantial expense, especially if the budget of the Secret Service is used as a guide. The Capitol Police appropriations recommended in this bill is $340 million, equal to the fiscal year 2011 level. The Capitol Police protect the entire Capitol Complex, with primary security responsibilities for 541 Members of Congress, Resident Commissioners, and Delegates. By comparison, the House-passed Secret Service appropriation bill included over $1 billion for the protection of 50 to 70 individuals, including the President.

{time} 1950

If the Capitol Police are going to be required to assess more threats against Members and take a more active role in district security, the Capitol Police budget should reflect these increased demands. Conversely, if Members' individual office budgets are going to continue to assume these additional security costs, their budget should somehow reflect this responsibility.

Again, I thank the ranking member for his work on the bill and the chairman and Mr. Rogers and our staff. We have a great staff, and they do great work for this institution.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend both the chairman and the ranking member for their hard work on this bill, although, with an inadequate allocation, there are decisions that have been made that I believe will adversely affect our work, and that I hope can be revisited down the line.

That's not what I want to talk at this moment, though. I want to talk about an unusual feature of the Legislative Branch bill that I hope also can be revisited down the line. I want to call the attention of my colleagues to the elimination of a program that has served this body and our Nation's interests well, the Open World Leadership Center, a unique enterprise, sponsored by the legislative branch of our government, something that I think should make us very proud of this institution and its international outreach. The bill before us today provides only shut down expenses for this program.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer an amendment to restore the program's funding because of the extremely low subcommittee allocation and the absence of acceptable offsets. There simply isn't money lying around to apply to this purpose. But I cannot let this body's commitment to the Open World Program end without voicing my disappointment and my hope that this matter will be reconsidered and can be reconsidered in the context of the Senate bill.

The Open World Leadership Program is a unique program administered by the Library of Congress that, over the years, has earned bipartisan and bicameral support. Since 1999, the program has brought emerging leaders from former Soviet States to all 50 States of our country, providing them a firsthand look at the U.S. democratic process, enabling them to exchange ideas with their American counterparts, and encouraging them to relate what they learn to their home environments.

The participants in Open World are not the people that typically participate in international exchange programs. They're not just the political or business leaders in the capital who venture to other nations frequently. No, they're teachers, they're judges, they're health workers, they're young activists. They're all sorts of people who live often in rural areas and smaller cities.

The program penetrates deeply. In my experience, uniquely so. It penetrates quite deeply, rather than just being another run-of-the-mill exchange program. I know about this, and many other Members in this body do as well. I've participated personally with these leaders as they've come to my district.

This is a well-designed program. It's a program that has made and can make a difference. It doesn't just merely scratch the surface. It involves Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Serbia. These countries remain strategically linked to U.S. interests because of their history and also because of their location in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.

The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HONDA. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The Open World Program is an effective diplomatic tool, and one of the legislative branch's few direct democracy promotion programs.

My colleagues, Open World is not about us. It's not about us. It's not about our institution. It's an instrument of outreach, a unique one. We should be proud of this, a unique instrument of outreach to a critical part of the world. And its loss would be deeply felt.

Now, in previous Congresses there has been some question of whether the Open World Program should be placed where it is administratively, or in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill. I've looked at this. I've concluded that the program's very placement in the legislative branch is, in fact, an asset, making clear the program is not tied to a specific administration with its foreign policy goals and priorities and politics. This, in fact, we're told has sometimes reduced obstacles to participation and has made the program more accessible.

Mr. Chairman, Congress' sponsorship of Open World has made me proud of this institution. We've assumed responsibility, very directly, for projecting our democratic principles and values to countries with histories of oppressive rule. We need to reflect further. We need to think long and hard on what it would mean to drop this program. What does that say about us? What kind of opportunities would we forego? If we do think long and hard, I have some confidence that we would reconsider what the subcommittee has recommended, and I very much hope we will have that opportunity.

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I've seen some bad Legislative branch bills reported from Appropriations in my years here, but this is by far the worst. In my judgment, the committee has failed to attend to the needs of this branch of government and done so for no apparent reason other than its adherence to an ideology exalting short-term political gain over long-term, careful stewardship of this first branch of government. There is no word to describe this bill other than

``reckless'' and I will not support it in its present form. Funding Capitol Hill's agencies at the levels contemplated in this bill will inflict real damage.

For example, this bill cuts the House itself by 7.9%, not the advertised 6.5%, when one factors in the cuts to the Architect's House Office Buildings account. Make no mistake: we Members will feel that cut. We will have fewer aides to help us answer our mail and help us with our committee work, so by definition there will be less of that work performed. Our standing committees are where oversight takes place, so federal agencies will have an easier time avoiding congressional scrutiny. Constituents who visit our congressional office buildings will find them in even more dilapidated shape than they already are because we are dramatically underfunding maintenance, something our property-owning constituents know costs only more money in the long run.

Other agencies covered in this bill received similarly short-sighted treatment. The Compliance Office, designed to ensure that Congress lives under the same employment and antidiscrimination laws as private employers, will suffer a 6.4% cut. A cynic might conclude such a cut is designed to cripple a tiny agency inadequately staffed in the first place. The Library of Congress, our country's premier cultural institution, gets cut 8.5%, threatening a return to the days where books sit on the floor for want of staff to shelve them, copyright applications take months to process instead of days, and services decline to libraries nationwide as well as research support to Congress itself.

The bill will cut the Government Printing Office's account for congressional printing by a stunning 16.6%. This appropriation supports the printing and posting online of all our bills, resolutions, reports and the Congressional Record. This ill-conceived cut threatens timely and efficient operation of both houses of Congress, especially if paired with an amendment by the gentleman from Indiana to reduce it by

$3.4 million more. Many at the GPO are already worried about potential lay-offs as a result. The Superintendent of Documents account, which enhances public transparency by distributing federal documents to depository libraries nationwide, faces a 12.1% cut in the bill and more if our Indiana colleague's amendment prevails. The Sunlight Foundation, a self-styled transparency advocate, believes GPO's been ``drastically cut'' even without further reductions.

The Congressional Budget Office and the General Accountability Office, which both help the Congress to assess budgetary accountability, receive 6.4% cuts, signaling the value the committee places on their very important work. To its credit, the bill holds the Architect of the Capitol's cuts for everything but the congressional office buildings to 1.5% below last year. The Architect operates many of our iconic facilities including the Capitol, the Supreme Court and the Library of Congress. If we were serious about preserving these hallmarks of American democracy and in creating jobs to strengthen our struggling economy, we would spend more in this area, not less.

I urge my colleagues to reject this bill. We can do better.

Mr. HONDA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.

Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under the 5-minute rule.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2551

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, 2012, and for other purposes, namely:

TITLE I--LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Salaries and Expenses

For salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives,

$1,226,680,000, as follows:

house leadership offices

For salaries and expenses, as authorized by law,

$23,275,773, including: Office of the Speaker, $6,942,770, including $25,000 for official expenses of the Speaker; Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $2,277,595, including

$10,000 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office of the Minority Floor Leader, $7,432,812, including $10,000 for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip,

$1,971,050, including $5,000 for official expenses of the Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $1,524,951, including $5,000 for official expenses of the Minority Whip; Republican Conference, $1,572,788; Democratic Caucus, $1,553,807. In addition to the amounts made available above, for salaries and expenses under this heading, to be available during the period beginning September 30, 2012, and ending December 31, 2013; $5,818,948, including: Office of the Speaker,

$1,735,694, including $6,250 for official expenses of the Speaker; Office of the Majority Floor Leader, $569,399, including $2,500 for official expenses of the Majority Leader; Office of the Minority Floor Leader, $1,858,205, including $2,500 for official expenses of the Minority Leader; Office of the Majority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Majority Whip, $492,763, including $1,250 for official expenses of the Majority Whip; Office of the Minority Whip, including the Chief Deputy Minority Whip, $381,238, including

$1,250 for offical expenses of the Minority Whip; Republican Conference, $393,197; Democratic Caucus, $388,452.

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,

$573,939,282.

Committee Employees

Standing Committees, Special and Select

For salaries and expenses of standing committees, special and select, authorized by House resolutions, $125,964,870: Provided, That such amount shall remain available for such salaries and expenses until December 31, 2012.

Committee on Appropriations

For salaries and expenses of the Committee on Appropriations, $26,665,785, 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, 2012.

Salaries, Officers and Employees

For salaries and expenses of officers and employees, as authorized by law, $177,628,400, including: for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Clerk, including not more than

$23,000, of which not more than $20,000 is for the Family Room, for official representation and reception expenses,

$26,114,400, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until expended; 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, $12,585,000 of which $4,445,000 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, $116,782,000, of which $3,937,000 shall remain available until expended; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Inspector General, $5,045,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of General Counsel, $1,415,000; for the Office of the Chaplain, $179,000; 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, $2,060,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House,

$3,258,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House, $8,814,000; for salaries and expenses of the Office of Interparliamentary Affairs,

$859,000; for other authorized employees, $347,000; and for salaries and expenses of the Historian, $170,000.

Allowances and Expenses

For allowances and expenses as authorized by House resolution or law, $293,386,942, including: supplies, materials, administrative costs and Federal tort claims,

$3,696,118; official mail for committees, leadership offices, and administrative offices of the House, $201,000; Government contributions for health, retirement, Social Security, and other applicable employee benefits, $264,848,219; Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery, $17,112,072, of which

$5,000,000 shall remain available until expended; transition activities for new members and staff, $2,721,533; Wounded Warrior Program $2,500,000, to remain available until expended; Office of Congressional Ethics, $1,548,000; 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, $760,000.

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 2012. Any amount remaining after all payments are made under such allowances for fiscal year 2012 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.

Republican Policy Committee

Sec. 102. (a) Section 109(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 74a-13(a)) is amended by striking ``the chair of the Republican Conference'' and inserting the following: ``the Speaker of the House of Representatives (or, if the Speaker is not a member of the Republican Party, the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives)''.

(b) Section 109(b) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 74a-13(b)) is amended by striking the period at the end and inserting the following: ``, and which shall be obligated and expended as directed by the Speaker (or, if the Speaker is not a member of the Republican party, the Minority Leader).''.

(c) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply with respect to fiscal year 2012 and each succeeding fiscal year.

Authority of Speaker and Minority Leader to Allocate Funds Amoung

Certain House Leadership Offices

Sec. 103. (a) Authority of Speaker.--

(1) Authority described.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision of law that sets forth an allowance for official expenses), the amount appropriated or otherwise made available during a Congress for the salaries and expenses of any office or authority described in paragraph (2) shall be the amount allocated for such office or authority by the Speaker of the House of Representatives from the aggregate amount appropriated or otherwise made available for all such offices and authorities.

(2) Offices and authorities described.--The offices and authorities described in this paragraph are as follows:

(A) The Office of the Speaker.

(B) The Speaker's Office for Legislative Floor Activities.

(C) The Republican Steering Committee (if the Speaker is a member of the Republican party) or the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (if the Speaker is a member of the Democratic party).

(D) The Republican Policy Committee (if the Speaker is a member of the Republican party).

(E) Training and program development--majority (as described under the heading ``House leadership offices'' in the most recent bill making appropriations for the legislative branch that was enacted prior to the date of the enactment of this Act).

(F) Cloakroom personnel--majority (as so described).

(b) Authority of Minority Leader.--

(1) Authority described.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any provision of law that sets forth an allowance for official expenses), the amount appropriated or otherwise made available during a Congress for the salaries and expenses of any office or authority described in paragraph (2) shall be the amount allocated for such office or authority by the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives from the aggregate amount appropriated or otherwise made available for all such offices and authorities.

(2) Offices and authorities described.--The offices and authorities described in this paragraph are as follows:

(A) The Office of the Minority Leader.

(B) The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (if the Minority Leader is a member of the Democratic party) or the Republican Steering Committee (if the Minority Leader is a member of the Republican party).

(C) The Republican Policy Committee (if the Minority Leader is a member of the Republican party).

(D) Training and program development--minority (as described under the heading ``House leadership offices'' in the most recent bill making appropriations for the legislative branch that was enacted prior to the date of the enactment of this Act).

(E) Cloakroom personnel--minority (as so described).

(F) Nine minority employees (as so described).

(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to any months occurring during the One Hundred Twelfth Congress that begin after the date of the enactment of this Act, and to any succeeding Congress.

Republican Conference and the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee

Sec. 104. (a) Section 103(b) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999 (2 U.S.C. 74a-8(b)) is amended--

(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking

``Subject to the allocation described in subsection (c), funds'' and inserting ``Funds'';

(2) in paragraph (1), by striking ``direct;'' and inserting the following: ``direct (or, if the Speaker is not a member of the Republican Party, under such terms and conditions as the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives may direct);''; and

(3) in paragraph (2), by striking ``direct.'' and inserting the following: ``direct (or, if the Speaker is a member of the Democratic Party, under such terms and conditions as the Speaker may direct).''.

(b) Section 103 of such Act (2 U.S.C. 74a-8(c)) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (c); and

(2) by redesignating subsection (d) as subsection (c).

(c) The amendments made by this section shall take effect as if included in the enactment of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1999.

Transfer of House Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations

Functions to Sergeant at Arms

Sec. 105. Effective February 1, 2010--

(1) section 905 of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (2 U.S.C. 130i) is repealed; and

(2) the functions and responsibilities of the Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Operations under section 905 of such Act are transferred and assigned to the Sergeant at Arms 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, $10,424,000, 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) $2,427,000 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, $3,400,000, 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, $1,363,000, 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,

$277,132,624, 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, $63,003,740, of which $2,000,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2014 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 2012 shall be paid by the Secretary of Homeland Security from funds available to the Department of Homeland Security.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

(including transfer of funds)

Sec. 1001. Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the Capitol Police may be transferred between the headings

``Salaries'' and ``General Expenses'' upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Waiver by Chief of Capitol Police of Claims Arising Out of Erroneous

Payments to Officers and Employees

Sec. 1002. (a) Waiver of Claim.--Subject to the approval of the Capitol Police Board, the Chief of the United States Capitol Police may waive in whole or in part a claim of the United States against a person arising out of an erroneous payment of any pay or allowances, other than travel and transportation expenses and allowances, to an officer, member, or employee of the United States Capitol Police, if the collection of the claim would be against equity and good conscience and not in the best interests of the United States.

(b) Investigation of Application; Report.--The Chief shall investigate each application for the waiver of a claim under subsection (a) and shall submit a written report of the investigation to the Capitol Police Board, except that if the aggregate amount of the claim involved exceeds $1,500, the Comptroller General may also investigate the application and submit a written report of the investigation to the Capitol Police Board.

(c) Prohibition of Waiver Under Certain Circumstances.--The Chief may not exercise the authority to waive a claim under subsection (a) if--

(1) in the Chief's opinion, there exists in connection with the claim an indication of fraud, misrepresentation, fault, or lack of good faith on the part of the officer, member, or employee involved or of any other person having an interest in obtaining a waiver of the claim; or

(2) the Chief receives the application for the waiver after the expiration of the 3-year period that begins on the date on which the erroneous payment of pay or allowances was discovered.

(d) Credit for Waiver.--In the audit and settlement of accounts of any accountable officer or official, full credit shall be given for any amounts with respect to which collection by the United States is waived under subsection

(a).

(e) Effect of Waiver.--An erroneous payment, the collection of which is waived under subsection (a), is deemed a valid payment for all purposes.

(f) Construction With Other Laws.--This section does not affect any authority under any other law to litigate, settle, compromise, or waive any claim of the United States.

(g) Rules and Regulations.--The Chief shall promulgate rules and regulations to carry out this section.

(h) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to payments of pay and allowances made at any time after the Chief became the disbursing officer for the United States Capitol Police pursuant to section 1018(a) of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2003 (2 U.S.C. 1907(a)).

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), $3,817,000, of which $884,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2013: 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, $43,787,000.

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, $104,790,000, of which $3,199,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

Capitol Building

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and operation of the Capitol, $35,354,000, of which $10,263,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

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, $9,852,000.

House Office Buildings

For all necessary expenses for the maintenance, care and operation of the House office buildings, $89,154,000, of which $40,631,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

In addition, for a payment to the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, $30,000,000, shall 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, $127,159,000, of which $33,377,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016: 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 2012.

Library Buildings and Grounds

For all necessary expenses for the mechanical and structural maintenance, care and operation of the Library buildings and grounds, $38,486,000, of which $12,726,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

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,

$21,500,000, of which $3,473,000 shall remain available until September 30, 2016.

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, $12,000,000: Provided, That of the amount made available under this heading, the Architect 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 or a duly authorized designee.

Capitol Visitor Center

For all necessary expenses for the operation of the Capitol Visitor Center, $21,276,000.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Salaries and Expenses

For all 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, $412,446,000, of which not more than $6,000,000 shall be derived from collections credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2012, 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 2012 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, $4,800,000 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,

$50,974,000, of which not more than $28,029,000, to remain available until expended, shall be derived from collections credited to this appropriation during fiscal year 2012 under section 708(d) of title 17, United States Code: Provided, That not more than $3,000,000 shall be derived from prior year available unobligated balances: Provided further, 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

$5,484,000 shall be derived from collections during fiscal year 2012 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 and prior year available unobligated balances are less than $36,513,000: 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

$4,250 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 all 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, $104,091,000: 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),

$50,674,000: 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 Provisions

Reimbursable and Revolving Fund Activities

Sec. 1101. (a) In General.--For fiscal year 2012, the obligational authority of the Library of Congress for the activities described in subsection (b) may not exceed

$169,725,000.

(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.

(c) Transfer of Funds.--During fiscal year 2012, the Librarian of Congress may temporarily transfer funds appropriated in this Act, under the heading ``Library of Congress'', under the subheading ``Salaries and Expenses'', to the revolving fund for the FEDLINK Program and the Federal Research Program established under section 103 of the Library of Congress Fiscal Operations Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-481; 2 U.S.C. 182c): Provided, That the total amount of such transfers may not exceed $1,900,000: Provided further, That the appropriate revolving fund account shall reimburse the Library for any amounts transferred to it before the period of availability of the Library appropriation expires.

Transfer Authority

Sec. 1102. (a) In General.--Amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2012 for the Library of Congress may be transferred during fiscal year 2012 between any of the headings under the heading ``Library of Congress'' upon the approval of the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

(b) Limitation.--Not more than 10 percent of the total amount of funds appropriated to the account under any heading under the heading ``Library of Congress'' for fiscal year 2012 may be transferred from that account by all transfers made under subsection (a).

Funds Available for Workers Compensation Payments

Sec. 1103. (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, available balances of expired Library of Congress appropriations shall be available for the purposes of making payments for employees of the Library of Congress under section 8147 of title 5, United States Code without regard to the fiscal year for which the obligation to make such payments is incurred.

(b) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect to appropriations for fiscal year 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter.

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; printing and binding of Government publications authorized by law to be distributed to Members of Congress; and printing, binding, and distribution of Government publications authorized by law to be distributed without charge to the recipient, $78,000,000: 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, $35,000,000: 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 2010 and 2011 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

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, 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.

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, $511,296,000: Provided, That, in addition, $18,304,000 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

Sec. 1201. (a) Section 210 of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2005 (2 U.S.C. 60q) is amended--

(1) by striking subsection (d); and

(2) in subsection (f)(2)(A), by striking ``United States Code'' and inserting ``United States Code, but excluding the Government Accountability Office''.

(b) Section 3521(1) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking ``section 105'' and inserting ``section 105 (other than the Government Accountability Office)''.

(c) The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to voluntary separation incentive payments made during fiscal year 2012 or any succeeding fiscal year.

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), $1,000,000.

TITLE II--GENERAL PROVISIONS

maintenance and care of private vehicles

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. fiscal year limitation

Sec. 202. No part of the funds appropriated in this Act shall remain available for obligation beyond fiscal year 2012 unless expressly so provided in this Act.

rates of compensation and designation

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 House of Representatives and Senate, and clerk hire for Senators and Members of the House of Representatives shall be the permanent law with respect thereto.

consulting services

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.

awards and settlements

Sec. 205. Such sums as may be necessary are appropriated to the account described in subsection (a) of section 415 of the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1415(a)) to pay awards and settlements as authorized under such subsection.

costs of lbfmc

Sec. 206. 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.

landscape maintenance

Sec. 207. 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.

limitation on transfers

Sec. 208. 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.

guided tours of the capitol

Sec. 209. (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.

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, 2012''.

The CHAIR. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those printed in House Report 112-173. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, except, pursuant to the order of the House of today, amendment No. 9 and amendment No. 12 may be offered out of the specified order. Each such amendment may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered read, 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. Honda

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and offer the amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Page 6, line 6, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Page 14, line 12, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am introducing on behalf of my colleague, Sanford Bishop, would increase the Capitol Police by a modest $1 million for the district office security for Members.

After the shooting of our colleague, Ms. Giffords, the Sergeant-At-

Arms and the Capitol Police provided Members with access to security reviews. These reviews and guidelines by the Sergeant-At-Arms provided Members with a litany of equipment and capital improvements that are needed to improve district office security. Even though the recommendations came from our security agencies, Members were left to fund these upgrades through their office budget.

When Members' offices are being cut by more than 10 percent in a year, I'm afraid the strain to continue constituent services will impede any Member's ability to pay for these upgrades. I'm hoping this amendment will be a small step in providing a centralized pot of funds so these upgrades do not go ignored.

The offset is from a lower priority House account that funds transition costs in 2012. It is not a transition year.

{time} 2000

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want to say to the gentleman that we are all concerned about security upgrades, and we accept the amendment.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Watt

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order under the rule.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $619,200)''.

Page 5, line 22, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $619,200)''.

Page 6, line 8, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $619,200)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $619,200)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. WATT. I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment to the Legislative Branch bill would decrease funding for the Office of Congressional Ethics, the OCE, by

$619,200 and transfer these funds to the spending reduction account.

I have offered this amendment because I believe there is a substantial bipartisan consensus, one, that the responsibilities of the OCE are redundant and duplicative of the House Ethics Committee; two, that the OCE's operations are substantially staff driven, and the staff has taken the OCE's mission well beyond what was intended in the statute that created the entity; three, that the procedures of the OCE are unfair and sometimes abusive of the rights of Members of the House; four, that a substantial part of the funds we spend on the OCE waste taxpayers' money; and, five, that using those funds to reduce our debt and deficit would be a far better use.

In these difficult budget times, I believe we have an obligation to judge the OCE on the same criteria on which we measure other agencies of the Federal Government. Using those criteria, my amendment proposes to eliminate duplication, demand accountability and adherence to the purposes for which the agency was created, demand fair due process treatment for Members of Congress as we would for other employees in both the private and public sectors, and force us to make a choice about how best to use our over $600,000 of taxpayer funds.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, as far as I'm concerned, is merely a punishment because some Members haven't liked some of the things the OCE has done. I will tell you that, having drafted the rule, I don't like everything they've done either, but the appropriate way to deal with that is to amend the rules of the House or to try to talk to them to amend their own rules.

There are ways to do the things that others have been concerned about, some of which I share. I have expressed my concern on certain issues to members of the OCE in the past. It's not to just pick a number and slash that number of 40 percent. That is merely, as far as I'm concerned, draconian punishment to say, We're the boss; you're not. It's not going to change one thing that the OCE does. It will simply make it a little bit more difficult for this House to maintain the integrity level that we have struggled so desperately to gain back over the years.

We've had our troubles. We will have problems in the future. Some of our colleagues will do something that none of us will like. The question is not that. The question is: How does the public see us?

I have a letter that I would like to submit to the Record that I think everybody got in their office today from the Campaign Legal Center, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, Democracy 21, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG. I don't agree with everything that each one of these organizations stands for either; however, they all agree that this agency, even with its flaws, has improved the reputation of this House when it comes to policing our own Members.

Again, I want to be clear: I do not think that they have done a perfect job. My guess is I don't think most Members think that the Ethics Committee has done a perfect job over the years. That's not the measure. If that's the measure, none of us would be in Congress. We couldn't get anything done because there is no such thing as perfection. The measure is simply: What has been done to improve the image of this House? And I think everyone in Washington who follows these things agrees that the creation of this group and the actions it has taken overall have improved the image of this House. And I would say that a cut of this level is simply a draconian measure to punish them for what they have done as opposed to try to improve what they do in the future.

Vote No on Watt Amendment To Weaken Office of Congressional Ethics

July 21, 2011.

Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose an amendment by Representative Mel Watt that would gut the Office of Congressional Ethics by reducing the funding for OCE by

$619,000 or 40 percent.

The recent dysfunctional performance by the House Ethics Committee has only served to reinforce the critically important role being played by the OCE in the House ethics enforcement process.

The OCE, under bipartisan leadership, has done an outstanding job in carrying out its mission to help protect the integrity of the House. There is absolutely no basis for reducing OCE's funding.

We strongly urge you to vote no on the Watt amendment.Campaign Legal Center,Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington,Common Cause,Democracy 21,League of Women Voters,Public Citizen,U.S. PIRG.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa

(Mr. King).

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding, and I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. And the reason for it is this:

As I watched the structure of the OCE be set up--and I'd say to the gentleman, for over 200 years we've had the Ethics Committee to take care of this business. If we want to amend the rules of the House, let's go back to what the rules of the House are. But the OCE has crossed the line over and over again.

And I would make this point: that they have gone on witch hunts. They have taken pieces of information that came from political opposition on either side and embellished that into things.

And they have violated Roman law, English common law, and the decency of the House by this: Classified confidential information used against Members of Congress who don't have an opportunity to face their accuser, whose reputations have been damaged by sometimes--I'll just say certainly leaks to the press, sometimes, I suspect, willful leaks to the press. We need to go back to the Ethics Committee dealing with this business as it has been for over two centuries.

This bill only passed by one vote a few years ago, and now we have a whole machinery out there whose sole purpose it is is to ask activist organizations on both sides to come in and send information in that would be used against Members of Congress.

I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CAPUANO. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know about Roman law, and I'm a little shaky on English law as well, but I will tell you that it doesn't violate any American laws that I'm aware of. If it did, they would be subject to all kinds of legal proceedings against them.

I understand fully well that some Members didn't like voting for this. They don't like the idea of people other than Members of Congress looking at anything we do. I understand that. And there was a great attempt to try to balance that fear with a movement forward, which is what we did.

I'd like to point out very clearly that when the Congress changed from Democrat to Republican, there was no attempt by anybody that I'm aware of to change one aspect of this rule, not one aspect. That was the appropriate time. Had someone done it, I would have been happy to work with them.

I've expressed my concerns here. I've expressed them to the OCE. I've expressed them to other Members. I share some of these concerns. But I don't think it's an appropriate thing to simply wheel the old-fashioned political tool of a big, heavy draconian weapon and try to slash their budget and think that you're going to change it. You're not. And you will be perceived, this House will be perceived by the general public for what this is: simply an attempt to roll back our progress on policing our own activities.

I understand that that might make some people comfortable, but it's not the right thing to do and people here know that. This is payback. And I don't mind--I'm one of the few Members of this House who proudly call myself a politician. I understand payback, but let's call it what it is: We don't like what they do, and we're going to defund them. Don't pretend that something else is going on. That's what it is. It will be bad for the House of Representatives, and it will not change the things that people have expressed that they don't like.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

{time} 2010

Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentleman.

I really understand that the gentleman from North Carolina is highlighting serious concerns with processes that he sees with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and I share some of his concerns. As well, I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has. It is really raising the question of trying to improve the ethics process in our House and improving the underlying authorization that may be more appropriate, and seeking more appropriate first steps.

I think this may be a situation where we may not be able to support the gentleman's amendment, but at the same time support the issue of improving what it is that he is seeking. I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts would probably be willing to work on that, and I think my friends on the other side would be willing, too.

Reluctantly, while I am not personally in opposition, I think for this portion of the process, I am in opposition.

Mr. CAPUANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Let me just address this whole issue of retaliation. This is not retaliation. This is a better use of the money than the OCE is making of it. There is an undercurrent in this House. Everybody knows that the OCE processes have been unfair, undemocratic, and they have singled people out. It should stop, and we should stand up and say that it should stop.

We did not give the OCE the authority to initiate themselves investigations without an outside complaint. They have systematically done that. And to the extent they have done it, we have provided more funding than I think is appropriate, which is why I got the 40 percent as opposed to 100 percent.

I want them to continue to go on with the investigations that are out there. And when other people initiate them, they should be allowed to pursue them. But they should not be allowed to initiate on their own witch hunts against Members of Congress.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. WATT. Mr. 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 North Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. 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 12, line 21, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $1,050,750)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $1,050,750)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, 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. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent and transfer more than

$1 million to the deficit reduction account.

The Joint Economic Committee is tasked with many of the duties of other congressional committees. Those other congressional committees already perform these duties, such as holding hearings, performing research, and studying the U.S. economy.

We here in America are facing a tremendous financial crisis. The legislative branch should not be excluded during budget cut debates.

The Joint Economic Committee performs overlapping duties that could easily be maintained by the Ways and Means Committee or the Budget Committee, or even the respective leadership policy committees. A 25 percent cut is very modest considering the gravity of the enormous debt that we are accumulating each and every day, and we must begin paying down that debt.

Our debt level is unsustainable, totally unsustainable. We are broke as a Nation. We have to start cutting in every aspect of the government's expenditures, and I believe the Joint Economic Committee can afford it, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent, or over $1 million. The funding included in the bill for the JEC is already less than the funding level provided to the JEC in fiscal year 2008. The Joint Economic Committee is a bicameral congressional committee composed of 10 Members from each, the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee.

The gentleman does not have an amendment to go after the House Committee, but instead has chosen to go after funding for this joint committee. I hope this isn't an effort to strike funding because this committee is jointly managed with the Senate. The last thing that this Congress needs is less collaboration between the two bodies. We need to continue collaboration.

The main purpose of the JEC is to make a continuing study of matters related to the U.S. economy, and this is exactly the type of analysis Members from both parties and both bodies need as we try to analyze complex economic issues as a Nation.

I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mr. BRADY of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I respect very much the gentleman from Georgia's efforts on cutting and shrinking the size of government, but the Joint Economic Committee is already under the appropriations recommendation operating below the 2006 level. So it is doing more than its share of shrinking and running efficiently.

Unlike other committees, the Joint Economic Committee is created by law to be the counterpart for a Congress to weigh against the President's Council of Economic Advisers. It is bicameral. It is bipartisan. It provides information important to the size of government, the efficiency of government, and what can get our economy going. An example of the research is the 4 months, weekends, evenings, that was done going through every page and provision of the new 2,801-

page health care law and identifying all of the new bureaucracies, agencies, and taxes that will be in between you and your doctor. That research could not be done otherwise. And I want to tell you, our Democrat friends will tell you that it provides the same type of analysis for their issues.

This is the type of information that Congress needs as we move forward on the critical issues of the economy. This committee has done its share of cuts, and I respectfully oppose this amendment.

Mr. HONDA. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a bicameral, bipartisan committee. But as I mentioned during my initial remarks, these functions could be very well performed by other committees. These are duplicative services, and so I urge adoption of my 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 amendment was rejected.

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 112-173.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. 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 17, line 25, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $467,000)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $467,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, 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. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply reduce funding for the Office of Compliance to the fiscal year 2008 level and would transfer almost half a million dollars into the spending reduction account.

At a time when we are facing such pressing fiscal crisis, we have a financial fiasco here in America because of the outrageous spending Congress has been doing by both parties. Scaling back the spending for the Office of Compliance to the 2008 level is a modest and reasonable request. We have to continue to make cuts in every corner of the budget that we can, and we have to prioritize paying down our massive Federal debt that is totally unsustainable.

{time} 2020

Again, if most offices within the Federal Government can reduce their spending back to 2008 levels, it is only logical for the Office of Compliance to do the very same. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

THE CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HONDA. The amendment would cut the Office of Compliance by

$467,000, even though the office is cut in the underlying bill by 6.4 percent--the same as the overall bill reduction. I have to question the motives of cutting the Office of Compliance disproportionately to the overall bill. Maybe the gentleman is not aware, but this office was established in 1995 by the Republican Congress to satisfy the Republican Contract with America.

The office implements the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure that Congress complies with safety, discrimination, and accessibility laws that everyone else in the Nation must follow. This amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements to provide our workers with a fair and safe working environment.

Therefore, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. DICKS. I want to associate myself with the gentleman's remarks and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. I just want to disclose the same comments I did in the last paragraph, that this amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements providing our workers with a fair and safe working environment. I don't think we should back off on that.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend Mr. Honda's comments. I offered eight amendments in total. Only three were held to be in order. So I'm not looking at anything specifically, except for the whole bill, to try to cut spending. Because it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put this country back on a good fiscal standing. I believe very firmly that we need to look at every single nook and corner, every dollar spent by the Federal Government, and cut wherever we can. I think this is a reasonable request.

I urge adoption of my amendment, and 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 amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Ms. Hayworth

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 112-173.

Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 21, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $632,780)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $632,780)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York.

Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

My amendment proposes that we cut the $632,780 proposed increase in funding to the Botanic Garden and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account. While the Botanic Garden in the FY12 budget receives an increase, almost every other account in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill has been decreased, including for the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, JEC, JCT, and the Capitol Police Buildings, Grounds, and Security account.

The Botanic Garden provides education and outreach programs, and they are definitely of value. They have been commended in the committee report for their accomplishments. But it is a time of austerity and the Botanic Garden should take the necessary steps to continue to pursue those programs with the same funding as they received in fiscal year

'11. Throughout the rest of the legislative branch in the Federal Government we're cutting costs, we're eliminating employee spots, and we're taking other reductive measures. Each of our offices and committees will be operating with additional cuts. The Botanic Garden can itself continue to provide successful services and maintain its venue with the same level of funding as in FY 2011.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment submitted with my colleague from New York to reduce the spending at the Botanic Garden. We're in the middle of a spending crisis that may lead to a sovereign debt crisis. In my view, there are very few programs funded by the Federal Government that can be exempt from fiscal responsibility and scrutiny. This is an unprecedented fiscal crisis. I applaud the Appropriations Committee's leadership and commitment to making significant spending reductions in this bill, including reducing personal office expenses and committee budgets.

There are many wonderful museums and points of interest here in Washington, D.C., and the Botanic Garden is among the best. My amendment, which would reduce its funding appropriations and take away its proposed increase, is not based on any act or omission by the Botanic Garden. They run a great program here. But let me be clear: as an avid outdoorsman and a gardener myself, I personally derive much benefit from the Botanic Garden right here on Capitol Hill. I have visited these beautiful places many times and always learn and see something new.

Our amendment is not intended to make the statement that the Botanic Garden is not a good and worthy program. It is. But it is not constitutionally mandated. It is not essential to providing key services to Americans. It does not generate jobs. It does contribute to the knowledge and understanding of the world, and that has great value.

Our country is in the midst of an epic fiscal crisis that threatens the livelihood and well-being of every single American, and even good and worthy programs such as the United States Botanic Garden cannot be spared from every effort to scale down our Federal budget significantly. This proposed amendment is a fair cut, indeed, in light of our fiscal crisis, a modest cut and consistent with the committee's recommendations for other programs within this bill.

I am confident that even with this reduced budget, the Botanic Garden will be able to offer an educational experience to all of us and to our constituents when they come to visit Capitol Hill. It is for those constituents that we offer this amendment and ask you for your support.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HONDA. While I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment, I think the record should be clear on the funding level in the bill. To suggest that the $600,000 increase in the Botanic Garden is somehow not needed is simply not true. The funding will be used for painting, electrical upgrades, elevator maintenance, evaporative cooling system upgrades, and the replacement for the vent system used in the plant greenhouse. I applaud the chairman for funding this necessary maintenance work so we do not have more expensive deferred maintenance in the future.

This bill does not fund millions in the maintenance needed by the Architect to sustain and improve our aging national iconic buildings, including the Capitol. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try and keep up with the maintenance at the Botanic Garden, and the Members attack because they can get a good headline in the paper.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect the point that the gentleman from California has made; but in a time when we are running a deficit of $14 trillion, at least, we have to seek to pursue sensible measures to reduce budgets wherever we can. And we are, unfortunately, faced with a time in our history in which what is nice to have or good to have must yield to what we absolutely must have. Therefore, I will defend the proposed reduction in the account that we have made in this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. I believe that there are other amendments forthcoming. I'm just very concerned about it, and I agree with the chairman in making this funding necessary. I know the Botanic Garden. I enjoy it. And I think that the funding that he has provided is sufficient to push forward the maintenance so that we do not incur a greater maintenance problem in the future.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree more with the gentleman from California that the Botanic Garden is a treasure. I, too, have visited it, with great delight. But I would suggest that we perhaps could get together and seek voluntary contributions to fund this additional budgetary amount so that we can respect the urgent needs of the United States budget and of the United States taxpayers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Hayworth).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Ms. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York will be postponed.

{time} 2030

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 6 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. 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 21, line 14, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $3,192,000)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $3,192,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, 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. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My amendment would reasonably reduce funding for the Botanic Garden to the fiscal year 2008 level and transfer more than $3 million to the spending reduction account. This bill funds the garden at $12 million. I'm only asking that the Botanic Garden be funded at $9 million.

Our Nation is broke. We are broke. There's no question about that. We need to face the fact that we are broke. Yet we continue to add to our enormous debt by borrowing more than $4 billion each day.

I believe, and I think that the American people would agree, that it is more reasonable to ask the Botanic Garden to stop trimming their hedges and to start trimming their budgets, like many of the other offices have done within the Federal Government and like many families and businesses have done all across this Nation.

We cannot afford to continue down this same path of fiscal irresponsibility that we have been heading down. I urge my colleagues to help me put America back on a different course and to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, we just had an amendment that reduced the funding by

$630,000. Now we have an amendment that will reduce it by 26 percent. I would suggest that that is a little bit extreme.

We as a subcommittee looked at all the agencies that we oversee. We reduced spending, as I said earlier, by 6.2 percent. Some agencies were cut more than others. The Botanic Garden at less than $600,000 will be at the current spending level this year. We feel like that needs to be where it is so they can continue to do the job they do. With a million people coming there, I think it's important, and I don't think we should cut it another 26 percent.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's remarks about this. When families face hard economic times, they look at extraneous expenses. I love plants. My wife and I work in our yard. We have plants that we baby, and she waters every day, so we certainly have a great appreciation of botanic gardens, plants, and the things that plants bring in the way of enjoyment. But when faced with hard economic times, people don't go out to Home Depot and buy more plants when they can't pay their bills, and that's the situation we're in as a Nation. Though the Botanic Garden is a very beautiful place, with a lot of very beautiful plants in it, I think it's not the responsible thing to continue to try to grow more things that are going to continue to grow the debt and spend money we just simply do not have.

As we've gone through the authorization process in the three committees I'm in, and as we've gone through these appropriation bills, I'm reminded of a saying that was utilized during our founding periods, but with a new twist, and the new twist is this: Don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut that fellow behind the tree. I hear that in the authorization committees over and over again:

``We have to cut our spending but don't cut me. Cut somebody else.''

``We have to get our debt under control, but don't cut me. Cut somebody behind the tree.''

There's nobody behind the tree. America deserves better. This is a simple cut. The Botanic Garden, as lush and pretty as it is, is not a necessary expenditure of the Federal Government, and I think the American people, if they had a choice, would support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's comments and the comments from the other side, but we just simply have to stop spending money that we do not have. It's irresponsible to do so, and so I urge the adoption of my amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

I just wanted to have the American people understand why we are opposing this amendment.

``The United States Botanic Garden is rooted in the Nation's heritage. During the late 18th century, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison shared the dream of a national botanic garden and were instrumental in establishing one on the National Mall in 1820.

``In continuous operation and open to the public since 1850, the Botanic Garden moved to its present location in 1933, a complex located along the north and south sides of Independence Avenue bordered by First Street and Third Street. The garden includes the Conservatory; the National Garden, which opened in 2006; and Bartholdi Park, which was created in 1932. A plant production and support facility opened in Anacostia in 1933 includes greenhouse bays and maintenance shops.''

This is a very important thing to the American people when they come here from all over the country. They want to see the garden, the Botanic Garden, and I just feel that we have to figure a way to fund this and to take care of the facility. This was a dream of the Founders of this Republic, and I think we should honor that dream and we should defeat both of these amendments and do the work that's necessary to keep it in a first-class condition for the American people.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. HONDA. The chairman of the subcommittee should be applauded for adequately funding the operations and necessary maintenance work so we do not have a more expensive deferred maintenance in the future, which usually is the result.

Now, about cutting and about plants. I think I know a little bit about plants and trees and people behind trees. There is someone behind the tree, and sometimes it's a gardener that doesn't know how to prune it to its proper shape so that it will express itself properly.

The Botanic Garden, let's face it, is a national treasure. It is something that people come to to enjoy. It's a heritage that our forefathers left behind that we should be able to maintain now and for the future. It's a place of respite and contemplation, and God knows that we all need that sometimes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I urge a ``no'' vote, and 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. Mr. 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 Georgia will be postponed.

{time} 2040

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Altmire

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 7 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I have an amendment at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 22, line 16, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $1,000,000) (reduced by $1,000,000)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment with the text that has been placed at the desk.

The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.

The Clerk read as follows:

Modification to amendment No. 7:

Insert ``first'' after ``the''.

The CHAIR. Without objection, the modification is agreed to.

There was no objection.

The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ALTMIRE. I rise today in support of an important program at the Library of Congress, whose sole mission is to preserve the books and documents that tell our Nation's history. The Library of Congress, a 211-year-old institution and our national library, offers an incredible range of research, interactive programming and innovative technologies. However, most would agree that books remain the fundamental components of any library.

Since 1995, the Library of Congress has been conducting a specific preservation campaign to save its books. The current program, known as the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program, aims to treat and preserve millions of hardbound books, paperback books, manuscripts, newspapers, maps, artworks, music scores, letters, pamphlets, and drawings. The program ensures that future generations are able to enjoy the important historical artifacts that are housed in the Library of Congress.

Many of the older books and papers at the Library of Congress are printed on acidic paper, which can turn brittle and fall apart with age. Deacidification extends the useful life of these works for up to 1,000 years longer than their useful life without treatment. Delaying the acidification process means more books would deteriorate beyond repair. Unfortunately, many old books in the Library's collection are already too brittle or in such poor shape that they cannot be preserved further. We must continue the work now to maintain the remaining books that can still be saved before they deteriorate further.

I am offering this amendment which would restore $1 million in funding for the Thirty-Year Mass Deacidification Program at the Library of Congress. Decisions that will affect the preservation of our Nation's heritage and history must be made carefully. We have to ensure that the Library has the resources it needs to maintain its collections.

For example, Mr. Chairman, if we cut $1 million from this project for this 1 year, as this legislation proposes to do, the project will take an estimated 20 years longer to complete while books continue to age and lose years off their useful life. Furthermore, the cut to this particular program is about 20 percent. It's disproportionate to the overall levels of cuts to expenses in other programs within the Library of Congress.

While cuts must be made, this program is something that cannot be put on hold. It cannot wait. Books will continue to decay, and we will risk losing irreplaceable works that chronicle and illustrate our Nation's history.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ALTMIRE. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for that good amendment, and we have no objection to it.

Mr. ALTMIRE. In reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I'm going to go ahead and read my last paragraph if the gentleman doesn't mind, but I do appreciate that.

The Library of Congress, the repository of our national knowledge, does incredibly important work in preserving our Nation's history. In turn, we must provide them with the capacity to preserve their books for generations to come.

I thank the gentleman for his acceptance of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).

The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Stutzman

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. 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 28, line 10, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $3,414,150.29)''.

Page 29, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by $1,531,990.51)''.

Page 37, line 7, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $4,946,140.80)''.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. STUTZMAN. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Dreier and the entire Rules Committee for ruling this amendment in order and for allowing it to be heard today.

This amendment asks the Government Printing Office to take an additional 4.3 percent cut that, if passed, would bring the total reduction of the GPO for fiscal year 2012 to 20 percent. The additional 4.3 percent cut would mean a total reduction of nearly $5 million. This may not seem like a lot here in Washington, but the American people demand government to make the same sacrifices at our offices and here in Washington as the families and small business owners make at their homes and places of work. It is our duty to manage our own House in a fiscally prudent manner. Let me lay out some numbers that may put this amendment's small reduction to the GPO in proper perspective.

The GPO spends over $28 million a year on the Congressional Record program alone. Over $8 million of that amount goes to the printing, binding and distribution of our Congressional Record. This includes payment for 4,551 copies of the Congressional Record despite the documents having been available digitally since 1994.

I don't know about you, Mr. Chairman, but spending $28 million to see and print what is said in Congress seems to be a raw deal. It really seems like a subsidy for a magazine that no one really wants to read. I have a couple of examples I'd like to share just to show the printing that goes on within the printing office.

Many of these documents show up in our offices and go straight into the recycling cans. One in particular that I found interesting is this document from the CBO, ``Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options,'' which has been printed en masse and is sitting around many of the offices on Capitol Hill. I think that this is a very appropriate measure we can take. When a small business is struggling, it must do without certain luxuries or conveniences. A business may cut marketing and printing costs in turn. A doctor's office might stop its magazine subscriptions it places in its waiting room. They expect us to do the same.

In May of this year, the Public Printer of the United States, who testified before the House Appropriations Legislative Branch Subcommittee, cited nearly 100,000 square feet of wasted government space. He also asked that GPO be taken out of the security business. I would have never guessed that the Government Printing Office spends $13 million a year on security.

My overall point is that there are creative solutions in order to make this small additional reduction to bring the reduction of the GPO to 20 percent. I applaud the recent internal efforts of Representative Lungren of California and Representative Gingrey of Georgia asking Members to opt out of such waste. However, I don't believe that that goes far enough in reducing the spending in this agency.

Mr. Chairman, let me finish by saying that a further 4.3 percent reduction in an office that prints unnecessary publications is not too much to ask. Let's take action. Let's do without as many words, and show Americans we can keep and make cuts of our own here in Congress.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for bringing all of these issues to our attention; but I want to direct him to United States Code, title 44, which basically directs the Government Printing Office to do the things that they do. So, if the gentleman is concerned, I'd suggest the first thing he do is read title 44 and find out what is required by Congress. If we change that, we might be able to change some of the printing that goes on.

The Government Printing Office only produces what it is ordered to produce by Congress. I think we all know that we've already cut their budget by 16 percent, and I don't know what's magic about the last 4.3 percent. I think our subcommittee, through a series of hearings and informal hearings, looked at the facts. We set some priorities, and we said we're going to reduce the funding by 16 percent. We detail in our report some of the things that are of interest to us. We actually are going to take a look at privatizing the entire Government Printing Office, but once again, so much of that is driven by this title 44.

{time} 2050

Already GPO has announced a buyout program. They're going to reduce their workforce by 15 percent through this buyout program. That's 330 positions. And any further significant changes are going to require a change in this printing law.

So while I think the gentleman makes some good points, I simply want to say that we looked at the facts. We reduced the spending by 16 percent. We think that's appropriate.

So I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. STUTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I do appreciate the points about the responsibilities of the GPO and that they are required by law to print certain documents, but let me give you several examples. And again, let's remind ourselves that all of these--this is actually an environmentally friendly bill. This is an amendment that would actually reduce the cost and the amount of paper that we print many of these words on.

These are all available to any American on the Internet, and especially to each one of us as individuals of Congress, Members of Congress, and to our staff. But we have the Congressional Record, the Congressional Directory, the Senate and the House Journals, memorial addresses of Members, nominations, U.S. Code and Supplements, laws and treaties, envelopes provided to Members of Congress for the mailing of documents, House and Senate business and committee calendars, bills, resolutions and amendments, committee reports and prints, committee hearings. All of these are obviously very important documents, but I believe in the day and age that we live in, all of these can be done electronically and digitally and would actually save dollars for the American taxpayer.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Honda from California.

Mr. HONDA. I thank the chairman for yielding.

My daddy used to say that you should really be careful of zealots because they come in hacking and hewing. I think there are a couple of things that the chairman has pointed out that require some study and thought.

The gentleman who's wanting to do the cutting, he indicated there was a book that was talking about deficits, but that book has been paid by CBO, so it is not a cost of GPO.

And then in terms of security, GPO has the security, but they're required to issue passports, and with passports you have to have security there.

So I think a more studied approach would probably be in place. Cuts for cuts' sake, I think, is, in the words of my father, foolhardy. I would recommend that we slow down and make haste with all deliberate speed, and I agree with my chairman here.

Mr. STUTZMAN. I yield myself 1 minute, the remaining balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

I understand the gentleman's point about CBO spending their dollars on this publication, but we see these publications around Capitol Hill everywhere. You go to any congressional office and you will see documents and publications that people never use.

Again, let's advance ourselves into the day and age that we live in and using these documents in electronic format.

But also my understanding is that the 16 percent reduction is returning ourselves to the 2009 levels, if my understanding is correct. I believe that we need to reduce ourselves even further than that.

Again, this is a very simple amendment. I think the American people would agree with this and that we are saving every dollar and looking at every opportunity to save tax dollars.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I might consume and simply to say that the subcommittee looked at this. We have concerns. We reduced spending by 16 percent. If you want to have any more significant savings, you are going to have to change the printing laws that are there in chapter 54.

So I would simply say I think we've done a good job of what we're trying to do. We are looking for ways. And remember, they print what they're asked to print. When GAO asks them to print something, they pay for it. A lot of people say that we ought to just privatize the whole thing, and that's something we're thinking about doing.

But I think we've cut down sufficiently. I think they can still do their job. They don't need any further cuts. I would urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Stutzman).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. 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 Indiana will be postponed.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 112-173.

It is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 112-173.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. 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 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.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PAULSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My amendment would prevent any funds in the Legislative appropriations bill from being used to distribute printed copies of legislation unless a Member specifically asks or requests for such a copy.

Now, currently when a Member introduces legislation or becomes a cosponsor of a bill, three copies of that bill are sent to the Member's office, and oftentimes many of these copies end up being thrown away or recycled because legislative text is certainly available online and the paper copies just add to the unnecessary clutter.

This amendment would seek to stop that practice. The legislation is available online, and if Members are interested, they could still get a copy of the bill or they can print it obviously offline or request to pick up a printed copy from the printing office.

I understand that there are absolutely valid uses for the printed copies of these bills, and this amendment does not prevent them from being printed.

A similar legislation, Mr. Chairman, was already adopted at the beginning of this Congress that passed the House 399-0. I would ask Members to support this amendment. It's fiscally responsible. It's common sense. It's environmentally the right thing to do as well.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. PAULSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think that's a good amendment, and we have no objection. We accept the amendment.

Mr. PAULSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Paulsen

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. 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 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).

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. PAULSEN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is similar to the last amendment. It would prevent any funds in the Legislative appropriations bill from being used to distribute printed copies of the Congressional Record to all 435 Members' offices each day that Congress is in session.

Now, many times copies of the Congressional Record are thrown straight into the recycling bin. My amendment would prevent funds from being used to deliver these Congressional Record copies to Members' offices. The amendment does not prevent the printing of the Congressional Record, just the delivery of the printed copy.

Of course, there are absolutely--as I mentioned in the last amendment, there are legitimate uses for the Congressional Record and some offices may require a hard copy, and this amendment does not prevent that. It remains available for pickup from the Legislative Resource Center for all offices.

Again, this is an amendment that is fiscally responsible and environmentally responsible.

I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2100

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The CHAIR. That may not be done on an amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I think if you read it carefully, the chairman and the ranking member, under the rule, can move to strike the last word.

The CHAIR. On the bill but not on an amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. On the bill? So I can't strike it on the amendment?

Then I will rise to claim time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I don't necessarily oppose the amendment. In fact, I think it's a good amendment. But I just want to mention a couple of things.

I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for bringing the amendment before us. We are trying to save money. Actually, I think a questionnaire was sent out to ask the Members if they want to receive a Congressional Record. Some people responded. Some people didn't respond. But I think like the last amendment that he offered, we are just trying to reduce some of the paperwork. And if people don't want to receive a copy, then they don't have to receive a copy. That might help save a little bit of money. I think on balance, it may create some problems, but I think it's probably a good amendment. And I would be willing to say we accept that amendment.

So with that, I think Mr. Honda might want to say a word, so I'm going to yield to him for such time as he may consume.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I figured that I could spend a little time now, since I didn't take it on the last one.

As a Member who represents Silicon Valley, I am supportive of most any effort to move us towards becoming a more paperless Congress. This amendment is easy to support because the Government Printing Office has already taken steps that reduce printed copies of the Congressional Record.

GPO has surveyed the House and Senate for their continuing to print copies of the Record, along with other print documents, like the Federal Register, the first survey of its kind. And for those offices like my own that told GPO that we want to opt out of having the Record delivered to our offices, GPO stopped those deliveries.

I think the gentleman would also be interested in knowing that 68 percent of the costs of producing the Congressional Record is incurred whether copies are printed or not. These are the pre-press costs that are used to create the electronic file which they upload for online and also print.

So while I'm not opposed to reviewing how Congress does its work, including its documents requirement, I believe Members should spend some time getting to know the agency before acting upon it. I think that this move towards a more paperless Congress will start here. It needs to start here with our own practices, and I believe the GPO will accommodate. Again, I support this amendment, as it reinforces steps already taken by our partners at GPO, and I thank our colleague for presenting this.

Mr. PAULSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman and the ranking member, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Paulsen).

The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. 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 in this Act may be used to purchase, acquire, install, or use any medium screw base compact fluorescent lamp or light bulb.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer a commonsense, cost-effective, environmentally friendly approach to lighting the Capitol Complex. The amendment states that no funds in the Legislative Branch appropriations bill may be used to buy, acquire, install, or use any compact fluorescent lamp, also known more commonly as a CFL.

I'm offering this amendment for several reasons: One, there are no compact fluorescent lamps manufactured in the United States. This is a very important point. The CFLs that provide light for this Chamber and the Capitol Complex are all foreign-made.

Two, CFLs contain mercury, a known neurotoxin which affects motor and cognitive skills by impairing the brain. If a CFL, or ``mercury bomb,'' as some have called them, breaks, the mercury vapor is released, placing those nearby at risk of inhaling the vapors and absorbing mercury through the lungs. The EPA has set up guidelines for the cleanup of broken CFL bulbs that includes evacuating the room immediately and venting it for at least 10 minutes. Even short-term exposure can potentially cause ``memory disturbances, sleep disorders, anger, fatigue, and/or hand tremors,'' according to recent studies.

Three, since Congress forced the use of foreign-made CFLs 4 years ago, American lighting manufacturers have made substantial investments in technology and have retooled their factories to make new LED and incandescent bulbs which meet the energy efficiency standards Congress mandated.

The best part: These new American-made bulbs are mercury-free, energy-efficient, cost-effective, and provide better lighting than their CFL counterparts. Let me say that again: This amendment does not ban energy-efficient bulbs from the Capitol. On the contrary, it makes sure that the energy-efficient bulbs that are used are mercury-free and made in America.

Let's take a closer look at these two bulbs. This curlicue CFL is energy-efficient by definition. No doubt. This halogen incandescent is also energy-efficient, by definition. This CFL contains mercury, and if it breaks, we have to evacuate the Chamber. This halogen bulb is mercury-free, and if it breaks, we get the broom. This CFL is made in a foreign country. This halogen bulb is made in America, with technologies created by American ingenuity. This CFL adds to our trade deficit. This halogen bulb supports American manufacturing and American jobs. These are good-paying, family sustaining jobs. And that's why the United Steelworkers has been more than happy to lend their support to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we can all agree, energy-efficient, cost-effective, environmentally friendly, and American-made is the way to go. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense amendment. It's just a bright idea.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us would prohibit the purchase, acquisition, installation, or use of any medium compact fluorescent lightbulbs. This amendment seeks to rehash the debate on lightbulb efficiency standards we had during the consideration of H.R. 2417, the BULB Act, which failed when it was brought to a vote earlier this month.

The impact of this amendment on this bill goes beyond a policy argument on whether or not you support these types of energy-saving bulbs. This amendment would prevent Members and staff from literally turning on the lights. If offices have these bulbs, which most do, they would be prohibited from using them.

One reason that folks support doing away with energy-efficient lightbulbs is because they consider them to be a potential mercury danger. There has been no proof that these lightbulbs expose people to unhealthy levels of mercury. This scare tactic is trying to impose fear and is a result of an overblown media report that exaggerated the potential danger.

These bulbs are safe. They're already installed and are used in the House, and they save taxpayers money. And, oh, by the way, I believe every thermostat we have in our House has quite a bit of mercury in there.

So with that, I urge defeat of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman for laying out his points there. I couldn't disagree more though. These are a result of those standards that were created in previous Congresses, long before I got here. These are energy-efficient bulbs that meet the standards today that were set forth by this body.

This amendment I'm putting forth is a commonsense amendment that recognizes the innovation of American manufacturers. These folks delivered what Congress put out there for an issue to do. And I disagree when it comes to mercury. What I quoted you was from the EPA in terms of, if this bulb were to break in this Chamber, we would be forced to evacuate, simply from breaking one bulb. The EPA tells us that a room would have to be evacuated. It would have to be cleared and ventilated. So that's from the Environmental Protection Agency. These are energy-efficient bulbs, and this is not the only one. Many manufacturers in the United States have risen to the challenge of meeting those new energy-efficiency standards.

{time} 2110

Why would we not recognize and utilize American-made bulbs that meet those energy efficiency standards that, frankly, contain no harmful chemicals in terms of mercury, as opposed to one--these bulbs, there is no place in the United States where CF bulbs are manufactured. This bulb is about foreign jobs.

And so I appreciate the gentleman's point. I just couldn't disagree more.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the example of the EPA indicating that this mercury would be a danger and so, off the subject then, when we talk about EPA standards and sustaining EPA, I hope that we can be on the same side on that one.

I continue to reserve my time in order to close the debate.

The CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I'm just trying to understand. I know you've got the two light bulbs there. Now, the one on the right, that's the one that's got mercury in it.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's correct.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Now, the one on your left, and that's made in America?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's made in America.

Mr. CRENSHAW. And that's just as efficient as the one in your right hand?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. It meets the efficiency standards that were--our manufacturers, when those were set by previous Congresses before my time here, our manufacturers, they stepped to the plate and they rose up and they chose to use innovation in their manufacturing. And this is one example of one product that's absolutely energy efficient, no mercury and American-made.

Mr. CRENSHAW. And you can still buy those at the store?

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. That's correct.

The CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

Mr. HONDA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the utilization of what you call the curlicue and the other light bulb, I guess the question would remain, in terms of efficiency and sustainability, how long of a lifetime does what you call the curlicue light bulb have versus the other one? It seems to me that when I'm a shopper and I look at prices and I look at the number of hours that it's going to be up there, the number of hours that the newer bulbs have exceed anything that I've seen before.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HONDA. Yes, but let me finish here. I just wanted to make sure that we don't confuse what we call efficiency with sustainability. I think the sustainability is also a piece that we should be looking at. The production of it, I think, is important, and I don't fight you on the point that we should make more stuff here. We should, and we will. I think that there are more products in Lowe's and Orchard Supply and places like that that exhibit that we are making more of that here.

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. I agree with the gentleman. Return on investment for consumers is important. In my experience with these bulbs, frankly, their durability is excellent. That is one of the things I think that innovation within light bulbs, our light bulb manufacturers have addressed, not just energy efficiency, but also durability, so that we have a bulb, an American-made product, that has a great return on investment for our consumers. That's all important. I couldn't agree with you more.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the wording of the gentleman's amendment says none of the funds made available in this act may be used to purchase, acquire, install, and use any medium screw-based compact florescent lamp or light. It also feels like the argument is about whether we can continue to purchase, or are we going to just allow these bulbs that we have in place to stay in place and not ever be removed.

So I think that, one, it's confusing. Two, I'm not sure that we're going to really attain this position of efficiency and sustainability under this amendment that is presented here.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).

The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. 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 Pennsylvania will be postponed.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Hanna

The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. 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 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 in an aggregate amount that exceeds $1,000 for the vehicle in any month.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Chairman, right now our Nation is seriously debating its fiscal future. We're making tough decisions to get spending under control. Congress should do the same.

This spending bill for Congress allows us an opportunity to practice what we preach when it comes to excessive spending on the taxpayer dime.

My amendment is quite simple. It states that the CAO may not make MRA payments for the leasing of a vehicle in an amount that exceeds $1,000 per month. It applies only to individual Member office accounts and would not affect the Capitol Police or other legislative agencies. It would not affect periodic car rentals, and it does not, it is not the intention of the amendment to affect mobile offices.

This is about preventing the leasing of expensive luxury cars. Currently, there is no cap on how much Members can spend on leased cars. The only requirement is that cars meet certain fuel standards.

This amendment installs a $1,000 monthly cap. Members of Congress have 2-year terms, which could require a slightly more expensive short-

term lease. This amendment accounts for that.

I believe the majority of this body and most Americans can agree that

$1,000 a month for a car is more than reasonable. We do not need to be spending the taxpayers dollars leasing expensive luxury vehicles, and certainly not during these tough economic times.

I would also note that the Senate does not offer any car leasing whatsoever. If Senators can go without car leases, Members of the people's House can get by with less expensive cars.

Wasting taxpayer dollars sends the wrong message to the American public. It only serves to further erode our constituents' faith in us, their elected Representatives.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, cost-conscious amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I just want to say that I think that's a good amendment. And I think some of the people that are concerned about the reduction in the MRA, then they won't have to worry about the extra

$1,000 that they were going to spend leasing a car because they won't be able to do that anymore under your amendment.

Mr. HANNA. They won't have it anyway, right?

Mr. CRENSHAW. So we have no objection, and accept the amendment.

Mr. HONDA. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HANNA. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HONDA. I have no objection. I just have a quick comment that I'm okay with including this prohibition. I think the Committee on the House Administration should review this issue and consider making a permanent change to House leasing policy, rather than having the Appropriations Committee carry this temporary fix.

Mr. HANNA. I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

The amendment was agreed to.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Hanna) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, 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. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during further consideration of H.R. 2551 pursuant to House Resolution 359, the following amendments be permitted to be offered out of the specified order:

Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Flake; amendment No. 11 by Mr. Flake.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Florida?

There was no objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 359 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2551.

{time} 2120

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 further consideration of the bill (H.R. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, with Mr. Woodall in the chair.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 112-173 by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna) had been disposed of.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Flake

The CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. 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 in this Act for Members' representational allowances or for official mail for committees and leadership offices of the House of Representatives may be used for any mailing that does not bear the official letterhead of the Member, committee, or office involved, other than a publication or document produced by another office of the Government or by an office of a State or local government that is included with such a mailing.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that all mail sent by Members, committees, and leadership offices be on the official letterhead of the sending office. This amendment would not prevent Members from sending mass mailings or the so-called ``499s.''

The specific intent of the amendment is to prohibit the use of the four-color glossy mailers that Members occasionally send and that are paid for at taxpayer expense. They are virtually indistinguishable at times from campaign mailers. If I were to hold up an example of franked mail sent out at taxpayer expense with a little tiny disclaimer there saying ``paid for at taxpayer expense''--four-color glossy with a big touched-up photo of the Member standing there, typically--you would not be able to tell the difference, unless you looked very, very closely, between that and campaign mailers that are sent out and paid for at the campaign expense.

I think that in this era, particularly given the budget constraints that we're under, for Members of Congress to be sending out what is essentially campaign mail at taxpayer expense should be forbidden. We shouldn't be able to do that.

We have certain rules that even prohibit the mailing of these mailers within 90 days of an election. So we recognize as a body, as an institution, that these are essentially instruments of a campaign; yet we allow it before 90 days. I would say that we are already drawing a line. That line is simply drawn in the wrong place. We should prohibit these four-color glossy mailers from being sent out at taxpayer expense.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

What are we going to do about three-color mailers? How about two-

color mailers?

I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, and we have rules and regulations in this House, but I don't think we ought to micromanage these MRA accounts. We've talked a lot about them, about the fact that we have reduced them by 6.4 percent, and people have said, gee, I might have to lay off somebody; or now we learn that, since you can lease a car, they might have to give up the lease on their car.

Some people say, I love to send out mail, and whether they send out mail on their letterhead--actually, that might cost more than a postcard. I guess under this amendment you couldn't send out a postcard--it's a little bit cheaper--because it wasn't printed on special stationery.

So I really don't think we ought to get in the business of saying what we can send out and what we can't send out. As long as the Members comply with the rules of this House, if they want to spend more money on a more attractive piece of mail that people might very well read, then they ought to be free to do that. If they want to print it on official stationery in blue or black or whatever color ink they want to use, they ought to be able to do that.

Some people think if you put a picture or a chart, people might pay more attention. And if you look at the rules of this House, we've got rules and regulations of how big the charts can be, how big the pictures can be, how big the letters in your name can be. Because I think the point is that we want to communicate with our constituents. If we want to mail them a newsletter, I think we ought to be able to do that, and it ought to be in a way that they would like to read it.

So I don't think we ought to get into the business of telling the Members exactly what they can do and when they can do it and what color it is. I think the rules of this House provide adequate protection, and so I have to oppose my good friend's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

The CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.

I would simply say in response that the gentleman says that we shouldn't be in the business of telling Members what they can mail and when they can mail it. We already are in that business. We do that. We already have a line drawn, 90 days before an election, and we say you can't mail these four-color glossy brochures after 90 days because it would be seen and perceived as electioneering. But what about 91 days before an election?

We have an office here that tells the Members what words they can use to describe a Medicare benefit or some bill that has been passed. If you use it in one way, they say that's disallowed. We shouldn't be in that business. That's the business we shouldn't be in. And we wouldn't be in that business if we just said, hey, don't do electioneering at taxpayer expense.

We all know, believe me, when you see those four-color glossies, you know that's a campaign mailer at taxpayer expense. So we're not fooling anybody by saying we have rules that prohibit it, and let's just stick to the rules of the House.

We do have lines that are drawn; they're just drawn in the wrong place. And I can tell you nothing feeds the cynicism around the country about us, Members of Congress, than to get one of those mailers and see the tiny print there, ``Paid for at taxpayer expense.'' We shouldn't be in that business.

During the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process the newspaper Roll Call noted that: The House Chief Administrative Officer asked appropriators to raise the Members' Representational Allowances, or MRA, which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies, by $90 million, citing increases due to the election year cycle.

Now, why would an election year cycle be any more expensive than any other? It's because Members all rush to get these glossy mailers out before the 90-day deadline. And we send the 499s. We send 499, you know why? Because anything over 500 is prohibited, so Members will send 499 of them. It's electioneering. We know it. We're not fooling anybody.

We ought to draw the line back a bit so we don't feed this cynicism around the country that says that incumbents have advantages that challengers or others running in these races every 2 years don't. And that's the truth.

Speaking here as an incumbent, we have enough advantages, believe me. We can get on television whenever we want. We can stand here at the pulpit late at night, or otherwise, and offer amendments. We can get our mug on television all we want to. We shouldn't have the advantage of sending out four-color glossy mailers at taxpayer expense. That's what this amendment is about, and I urge adoption of it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield some time to Mr. Honda, but I just can't help but realize that you can't mail any mass mailings, whether they're black and white, whether they're four color, eight color, ten color. So I appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do, but he's not going to stop people from sending out newsletters. They can send them out in black and white even if his amendment passed.

Once again, this doesn't save any money. I just think, clearly, Members have these MRAs. They can utilize the money to communicate the best way they can as long as they comply with the rules. And the rules say you can't send out a mass mailer 90 days before an election, whether it's black and white, one color, two colors, four colors, eight colors.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

{time} 2130

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

The Flake amendment will prevent Members from sending mailings that do not use official letterhead. The Committee on House Administration handles franking, not one individual Member who has decided that he does not like the mailing system of other Members.

What the gentleman is trying to prevent is an eligible activity under franking guidelines. I would remind the gentleman that he is now a Member of the majority party. He should reach out to his leadership to change the House franking regulations if he has such a problem.

I do not believe in a one-man regulatory body, and I certainly do not believe one Member should dictate how another Member communicates with his or her constituents. I oppose the amendment on the grounds that the gentleman from Arizona is impinging on individual Members' choices in how they communicate with their constituents.

As I said before, the Committee on House Administration has all those guidelines; and the guidelines even make my job a little tight sometimes, but there is a purpose for the guidelines that they give us, and that is to distinguish between campaigns and making sure there are time lines prior to campaigns. So I appreciate his efforts, but I still oppose the amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Flake

The CHAIR. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, it is now in order to consider amendment No. 11 printed in House Report 112-173.

Mr. FLAKE. 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 in this Act for Members' representational allowances or for the expenses of committees and leadership offices of the House of Representatives may be used to purchase advertisements that hyperlink to any website maintained by funds provided under a Members' representational allowance, funds provided for salaries and expenses of committees of the House, or funds provided for salaries and expenses of leadership offices of the House.

The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 359, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Members from purchasing online advertisements that link to a Web site that is maintained by their MRA.

This appropriations bill will fund the legislative branch through much of the next election cycle. We all know, as I said before, incumbents tend to have a natural advantage over challengers in elections; 98 percent of incumbents are typically reelected. It is largely due to the benefits that we currently have. We shouldn't try to make those better than they are naturally.

Members are allowed to use funds in order to design and obtain an official Web site through house.gov. That is perfectly appropriate, and I am glad we are able to do that. We all have our Web sites that we maintain using our funds, and people should be able to contact their Members of Congress, and that is the easiest way to contact us at this point.

Members are also allowed to maintain various profiles on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and ones that will be created in the future. Aside from the salaries and expenses of a Member's staff and computers, maintaining a social networking profile doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers.

However, some Members have been using official funds to pay for ads that link either to their official Web site or to one of their social networking profiles. I would submit that while it may serve our purposes, by its very nature, purchasing advertising provides a Member an opportunity for promotion that facilitates greater name identification. Is not broadening name recognition and identification a classic responsibility of a Member's campaign activities?

If there is even a chance that taxpayer money on online ads could be viewed by Members as promoting themselves for campaign purposes, we should not allow it. Especially now that we are in this budget crisis, we shouldn't be allowing Members to use their MRA or taxpayer money to purchase advertising to drive people to their official sites or their social networking sites.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the last amendment. Members have an MRA. They can spend the money as long as it is under the rules of the House. They can hire staff. They can travel back and forth to their districts, and they can send out letters. And now that we have the Internet, you can use the Internet to communicate with your constituents.

We shouldn't prohibit communication from a Member to a constituent. Certainly no one believes that you ought to be able to use taxpayer dollars to buy political advertising, but I think the rules allow a Member to notify constituents of a town meeting coming up. He can send out a postcard or a four-color flier. He can send out a letter on his letterhead. If a Member wants to announce that they are seeking applications for appointments to military academies, they can notify people by mail or on the Internet.

So I think we have adequate rules and regulations that make sure that we are not abusing the taxpayers' dollars. And remember, these are dollars that are provided to the Members; and so when you micromanage how they spend it, it doesn't save any money. It just adds a layer of us telling Members how they can do things. And that is not our business.

Again, I urge we defeat this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I would say in response that we already have lines that we have drawn. We don't allow Members simply to advertise out on the Internet like a campaign would. That's paid for by campaign activities, not by taxpayer dollars. Yet this is something that has grown and evolved just over the past couple of years, the ability to buy advertisements that drive people to your Web site. This isn't something that we could have foreseen 10 years ago. It has just evolved. We need to bring our regulations in line with current technology.

I would submit that buying online advertising to basically increase your name identification should be beyond what our official money should be used for. There are plenty of ways that Members can announce town halls, service academy nominations, seminars, or any other event that they need to host without buying online advertising with taxpayer dollars. That's what this amendment is about.

The gentleman before brought up a point: Why don't we just take this kind of thing to the Franking Commission or to the administration of the House and say let's change the rules rather than doing it here?

I can tell you why. Typically, there is a partisan environment against spending or against this or against that where you have some kind of debate. But in this case, Republicans and Democrats work together to protect incumbents because we are all incumbents here. Unless you can let the public know what is going on in a forum like this which you don't get when you just go to the Franking Commission, you don't get change.

I can tell you that sending out four-color glossy brochures, as I mentioned in the last amendment, or buying online advertising to direct people to your official site does not pass the smell test or the laugh test outside the Beltway in terms of what taxpayer money should be spent on.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent Members from purchasing advertising that hyperlinks to their official Web sites. It is unclear what the gentleman from Arizona is attempting to do. His amendment seems to sanction the advertisement as long as the link is to a nonofficial Web site of a Member. But why would a Member link an advertisement highlighting official events to his or her Facebook pages instead of to their House Web site?

This amendment also could make ads more expensive if Members have to put more information in the ads rather than linking them to their House Web site. So while the Member focuses on online advertisements, his amendment actually pertains to all advertisements. It is not clear if this amendment would be interpreted to prevent Members from showing their Web site link on television ads that are used to inform constituents of official events. These advertisements are sanctioned by House administration, and there are seven points that we have to follow.

So I would say that this amendment is not clear in its scope and impact, and it is in contravention of the majority's guidelines on how Members can use their MRA funding.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, in closing, it was pointed out that technologies have advanced, and I think the House has stayed current. In 2009, the rules were modified to make sure that these franking rules, these rules that govern communication, apply to the Internet as well.

{time} 2140

So we have adequate safeguards in place. We don't need to be micromanaging that. We let the rules of the House prevail.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Flake) having assumed the chair, Mr. Woodall, 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. 2551) making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 157, No. 110