Providing for 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.

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

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

I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

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

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).

I claim time in opposition to this amendment.

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

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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

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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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

I claim time in opposition.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

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

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

Then I will rise to claim time in opposition.

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.

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.

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

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

And you can still buy those at the store?

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.

So we have no objection, and accept the amendment.

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

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.

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

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. 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).

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

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

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

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 359 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

House Resolution 359 provides for a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2551, the fiscal year 2012 Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2551. This rule represents a continuance of fulfilling the new Republican majority's pledge to implement a more open legislative process in providing for consideration of a bipartisan list of 16 amendments, which is more than at any time dating back to at least 1988. Twelve amendments were made in order in both the second session of the 103rd Congress and the first session of the 104th.

This is in stark contrast to the past two Congresses in which Democrat domination of this House provided for a collective grand total of four amendments that were allowed to be debated during the past 4 years, when three were made in order during the first session of the 110th and one in the first session of the 111th.

In fact, even considering a Legislative Branch appropriations bill is a change of pace from Democrat control when 2 years yielded no consideration of standalone funding legislation, second sessions of both the 110th and the 111th Congresses. In other words, with the consideration of this single rule and bill, the House Republican majority is making in order four times as many amendments on standalone legislative branch appropriations legislation as were provided for in the previous 4 years of liberal Democrat House domination combined.

Given the terrible budgetary mess we inherited from the liberal Democrats, the underlying bill reflects the Republican House majority's continued drive for restoring the fiscal restraint that is so desperately needed in this city.

The bill appropriates $3.3 billion for legislative branch entities, including $1.2 billion for House operations and $2.1 billion for legislative branch agencies and other offices, including the Capitol Police, Congressional Budget Office, the Library of Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and Government Printing Office. This total is $227 million, or 6 percent less than the current funding, and $472 million, or 9 percent less than requested by the offices and agencies covered by this bill.

The cuts come on top of the 2.5 percent, or $115 million, cut from fiscal year 2010 contained in H.R. 1473, which was the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution deal that was ultimately signed into law.

That bill provided $4.5 billion for the legislative branch, including a reduction of $55 million in funding for the House from the year before, and provides a 5 percent cut in Member, committee, and leadership office expenses, except for the Appropriations Committee, which offered a larger 9 percent cut.

At this point, Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this place in the Record a budgetary outline of H.R. 2551.

Out of the $1.2 billion provided in this bill for House

operations:

$574 million is provided for operating members' offices,

$39 million (or 6%) less than current funding and $60 million

(or 9%) less than requested.

$293 million for allowances and expenses, $24 million

(representing 8%) less than current funding and $15 million

(or 5%) less than requested.

$153 million for salaries and expenses of House committees,

$10 million (representing 6%) less than current funding, and

$10 million (or 6%) less than requested. -and-

$178 million for functions performed by the various House

officers and employees, including the Clerk of the House, the

Sergeant at Arms, and the Chief Administrative Officer, $16

million (or 8%) less than current funding, and $26 million

(representing 13%) less than requested.

Furthermore, the bill provides funding levels for the

following agencies:

$490 million for the Architect of the Capitol, which is $37

million (or 7%) less than the current level, and $129 million

(or 21%) less than requested.

$340 million for the Capitol Police which is equal the

current funding, but $47 million (or 12%) less than

requested.

$575 million for various activities of the Library of

Congress which is $53 million (or 9%) less than the current

level and $91 million (or 14%) less than requested.

$113 million for activities of GPO which is $22 million (or

16%) less than current funding and $35 million (24%) less

than requested.

$44 million for CBO which is $3 million (or 6%) less than

current funding and $3 million (or 7%) less than requested.

$511 million for GAO which is $35 million (6%) less than

current funding and $46 million (8%) less than requested.

Even with all of these funding reductions, it's easy for those who look at Washington, D.C., and see only political dysfunction to oppose providing any funding at all for the legislative branch. While they may see this bill simply as a vehicle for fattening the paychecks of congressional staff and other undesirables, we must remember the important work these support people provide in the function of the most important branch of government.

Contrary to popular belief, congressional staffers work notoriously long hours for relatively little pay and help us represent the views of our constituents. Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of constituents throughout the country are helped to navigate the Federal bureaucracy every day by our local case workers working in nearby district offices. Their work here is hardly the self-enrichment many people are led to believe by populist media sources eager to pose the catchiest headlines.

At the same time, we must remember the many important functions this funding provides in serving and protecting the American public. Given ever-evolving security threats, this bill funds the Capitol Police who protect critical infrastructure as well as secure the safety of the thousands who visit Capitol Hill every day. And we thank the Capitol Police for their invaluable service.

Furthermore, this bill's funding provides for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of 17.4 million square feet of buildings and more than 460 acres of land throughout Capitol Hill, including the House and Senate office buildings, the U.S. Capitol, Capitol Visitor Center, the Library of Congress buildings, the Supreme Court buildings, the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Capitol power plant, and other facilities which are needed for Presidential inaugurations and other ceremonies of national importance.

The responsible funding level in this bill provides adequate funding for the critical functions of the legislative branch but also represents a step in the right direction towards enhancing government efficiency. During these times of fiscal restraint, this bill underscores the new House Republican majority's will to share in the pain of difficult spending decisions.

Mr. Speaker, not too long ago, it used to be that if funding levels weren't rising fast enough, then Congress was seen as cutting a program. That reality is no longer. When the new House Republican majority says we're going to cut spending, we actually reduce spending. This is the commonsense understanding of the American people which is reflected in the underlying legislation. And I will urge my colleagues over and over to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado would have the American people believe that we can't make any cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, but I don't believe that argument is going to go very far. The American people know that we can make big cuts in spending at the Federal Government level, and Republicans are making sensible cuts in spending at the Federal Government level. In the leg branch, it's not a huge amount of money that we have control over; but we believe, on our side of the aisle, that we should make spending cuts everywhere.

Many millions of Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took control of this Congress in January of 2007. We had a 4.5 percent unemployment rate when they took over, and now we've had north of a 9 percent unemployment rate for several years. Those people didn't have any choice at all about whether they continued their income or not. What we're saying is, we want to continue the vital functions, those particularly that serve the American people. We want to keep this Capitol looking great.

We want to keep the Capitol Police force at full force. We want to give them the tools that they need. But everybody in Washington, D.C., can work a little harder and spend a little less money to make it easier on the American public, and that's what we're recommending in this bill. And I believe this rule does a very good job of representing the amendments that were presented to the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about what are the problems that we're facing here, but I think it's better if I quote someone who put some of the situation that we have here in perspective. And so I'd like to quote a Washington Post article by Charles Krauthammer, a brilliant essayist, who put forward this article.

He said other solutions are being suggested by ``the man who ignored the debt problem for 2 years by kicking the can to a commission.

``Promptly ignored the commission's December 2010 report.

``Delivered a State of the Union address in January that didn't even mention the word `debt' until 35 minutes into the speech.

``Delivered in February a budget so embarrassing--it actually increased the deficit--that the Democratic-controlled Senate rejected it 97-0.

``Took a budget mulligan with his April 13 debt plan speech. Asked in Congress how this new `budget framework' would affect the actual Federal budget, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf replied with a devastating `We don't estimate speeches.' You can't assign numbers to air.

``The flip-flop is transparently political. A clever strategy it is: Do nothing and invite the Republicans to propose real debt reduction first; and when they do--voting for the Ryan budget and its now infamous and courageous Medicare reform--demagogue them to death.

``And then up the ante by demanding Republican agreement to tax increases. So first you get the GOP to seize the left's third rail by daring to lay a finger on entitlements. Then you demand the GOP seize the right's third rail by violating its no-tax pledge. A full spectrum electrocution. Brilliant.

``And what have been Obama's own debt reduction ideas? In last week's news conference, he railed against the tax break for corporate jet owners--six times.

``I did the math. If you collect that tax for the next 5,000 years-- that's not a typo, 5,000 years--it would equal the new debt Obama racked up last year alone. To put it another way, if we had levied this tax at the time of John the Baptist and collected it every year since-- first in shekels, then in dollars--we would have 500 years to go before we could offset half of the debt added by Obama last year alone.

``Obama's other favorite debt reduction refrain is canceling an oil company tax break. Well, if you collect that oil tax and the corporate jet tax for the next 50 years, you will not have offset Obama's deficit spending for February 2011.''

Mr. Speaker, there you have it: Liberal hypocrisy exposed in another brilliant Krauthammer essay.

The choice before the American people is clear. We can either continue accommodating the passions of the liberal elite in cementing a bloated dependency state fueled by job-crushing tax increases, or we can trim spending so private sector employers and innovators, who are the real creators of wealth, can do what they do best in healing the wounds of unsustainable government largesse.

Mr. Speaker, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle simply cannot stand any kind of cuts. What they want are tax increases and continued irresponsible spending.

Republicans are bringing a different message, a message from the American people.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that Members of Congress should be extravagant in their spending in any way whatsoever, but I think it's up to the voters to hold those Members responsible for what they do. If there is a Member that is leasing a car that's paying an exorbitant amount of money, then the voters should turn that person out if they think they're wasting their money. I would certainly think that person is wasting his or her money. That's up to the voters to take care of.

We're doing our part here in the Congress. We are balancing between making sensible cuts and making sure that the public is well served when it visits Washington, D.C., and the public should be well served by the individual Members. And I hope that if there are abuses on the part of any Member of Congress, no matter which party he or she belongs to, that the voters will look into that and take care of that

person. But that is not our exact responsibility here. Our responsibility is, as it is everywhere, to allow a certain amount of money to be spent in the Members' offices, and then each Member should be held individually responsible.

Mr. Speaker, we have discussed at great length today why America needs this rule and this bill. Voting for these measures will allow the House to continue its work toward resolving the debt crisis currently gripping the Nation. As we continue this debate, we must remember the simple truth that tax increases have been tried before and led us to the mess that we have today.

We should not be raising taxes because tax increases do nothing more than fuel parasitic, wasteful government spending. We are cutting the spending for the leg branch in a very responsible way, and that's what we should be doing. But it is past time that we pursue an innovative idea, one that is unparalleled in modern American history, and that is to cut spending and shorten the long arm of government that is currently choking economic prosperity. That is what is happening in every appropriations bill that we're passing.

As we rapidly approach our Federal debt ceiling, our economy is struggling and people are looking for jobs. Americans crave accountability and belt-tightening in Washington and need the Federal Government to stop draining job-creating resources from the private sector to fund misguided adventures in social engineering. They demand action and they deserve answers.

H.R. 2551, for which this rule provides consideration, reflects the House Republican majority's unending commitment to restore the fiscal discipline that is so long overdue in this city. It represents a sensible balance between the vital need for budget restraint and funding the critical functions of the legislative branch.

Without compromising the safety or security of critical infrastructure, this bill further trims the fat and encourages efficiencies while demonstrating that we are not immune to feeling the effects of much needed spending cuts that are so desperately needed throughout our bloated Federal bureaucracy.

It is for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the underlying bill so that we can begin to restore the trust Americans have in their Federal Government.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in opposition to the rule; again, a rule that is not an open rule that allows for different amendments to be brought forth under this rule, as we have done with other appropriations bills. I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Americans think of Congress, they likely picture our beautiful Capitol Building, its iron dome, the rotunda filled with so many tourists each day, and so many sites on the National Mall and around the Capitol complex. But that is really just the physical infrastructure that we all live in and around. What really makes Congress function, or fail to function, are its people, its human capital, the staff that we have on the Hill that help keep Members informed and able to effectively operate in an increasingly complex world.

The bill before us risks squandering Congress' human capital. The bill cuts the legislative branch by 6.4 percent below 2011 and 9 percent below 2010 funding levels. What that means is the hardworking and underpaid and overworked men and women who staff our offices and our committees, giving long hours--frequently giving up their weekends. They'll be working through next weekend, Mr. Speaker. And I think there are very few jobs where they are actually thrilled to be informed that they actually have the weekend off. I know that not only myself but my staff rejoiced in leadership's decision to allow us not to work this weekend. I think that is a bar that most people assume they won't be working on weekends. Well, we assume in many cases we are, and we are actually very happy when we only have a 5-day workweek. That's the type of dedication that brings people into this line of work.

This cut will result in layoffs and pay cuts for members of the staff. And I would like to point out, it doesn't ask anything of the highest paid people here, the Members of Congress. We make $174,000 a year. I am a cosponsor of a bill to reduce that by 5 percent. But here we are, cutting salaries for people making $30,000 and $40,000 a year without cutting the salaries of any of us who make $174,000 a year. Again, I think that's just wrong. I think it's consistent with the Republican agenda of preserving tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year and making hardworking middle class families earning $80,000, $100,000 a year dig deeper and pay more by cutting student loans and programs that they benefit from.

So it shouldn't come as any surprise that that Legislative Branch appropriations bill is consistent with that in that it asks great sacrifices and at a time that we all agree our country has to cut back. But it asks great sacrifices of those making $30,000, $40,000 a year and takes nothing away and demands nothing of those who are earning $174,000 a year, namely, the Members of Congress themselves.

Another concern about this bill is, instead of strengthening security in the wake of violence against Members, including the events in Tucson several months ago, instead of investing in inspectors, they've slashed, under this proposal, every operation under the legislative branch except for Capitol Police, but including the Sergeant at Arms Office. Again, this represents a potential physical threat to Members at a time when, unfortunately, our national discourse has become more divisive than ever.

This bill also cuts the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent. I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, what the Library of Congress does and how we, as Members of Congress, rely on them. They are our objective research service. My staff and I, along with other Members of this body, rely on the Congressional Research Service. We get experts on issues on the phone, bring them to our offices to gain their expertise on complicated appropriations, budget issues, the peace process in the Middle East. This information is a vital part of producing sound legislation.

They are our only objective source of information. By reducing their ability to supply Members of Congress and our staff with quality information, we only empower the lobbyists and the other exclusive purveyors of information in this town who will give less objective information than Members of Congress and their staffs will have to increasingly rely on, rather than the Congressional Research Service.

The Government Accountability Office is cut by 6.4 percent. I want to point out that the GAO saves money. Again, every $1 we spend at the GAO results in $4 of savings. This is an office charged with finding savings and excess on duplicative expenditures. So by cutting their ability to do that, we actually increase wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget. It's the congressional watchdog. Taking away funding from the GAO means taking away methods on how we can alert policymakers to emerging wasteful spending and wasteful programs throughout government.

GAO is proven to protect taxpayer dollars. It was GAO that warned Congress about problems in the savings and loan industry. It was GAO that warned Congress about the dangers of deficit spending. If there's a looming issue that's not getting public attention but threatens public dollars, the GAO needs to be there to do thoughtful research and help Congress understand these issues.

I am also very concerned with the cuts to the Congressional Budget Office, the 6 percent cut. The Congressional Budget Office is critical to reducing our deficit. To cut Congressional Budget Office spending now, at a

time when we are coming up with trillion-dollar plans to reduce our deficit, would prove that the majority does not value proper accounting or prompt consideration of important policy proposals. We want to make sure that what we are passing has cost savings, reduces the deficit, and cuts spending, and the taxpayers are protected. We also want to make sure we pass legislation as expediently as possible. And if we're cutting off funding to the Congressional Budget Office and we expect layoffs, I'm not sure that we have the taxpayers' best interests at heart.

There were also amendments that were brought forth in the Rules Committee that, if we had an open amendment process, we would be able to include; but, unfortunately, they were not made in order under this particular rule, including a bipartisan amendment by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Representative Schweikert. The amendment would have provided $100,000--not of new money but rededicated from another account to name one of our rooms in the Capitol Visitor Center the Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room.

Who is Gabriel Zimmerman? He is the first congressional staff person in this country's history to die in the line of duty. He was with Representative Giffords in the January 8 tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, that struck this country and shocked our Nation and really tore through the fabric of the congressional community. Representative Schweikert and Representative Wasserman Schultz came together to provide a fitting memorial for a member of our congressional family that died in the line of service. Gabe Zimmerman was a loyal, dedicated public servant; and he made the ultimate sacrifice to this country as the first congressional staff person murdered in the line of duty in the history of our country.

This distinction wouldn't have cost taxpayers any money and would have recognized not only the devoted service of Gabe but also of the thousands of other staff people on Capitol Hill and I think would have been appropriate, particularly at a time when every Member's office will be involved with pay cuts and layoffs as a result of the 6.5 percent cut, to show that beyond the dollars, the giving of your life and the dedication of the staff that help keep us well informed in making decisions in the best interests of the country is appreciated by the institution of Congress as a whole.

I therefore oppose the rule, as well as the underlying bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Now, again, I know how my colleague from Texas and my colleague from North Carolina have discussed how tough these economic times are and how Congress needs to tighten its belt, and that's true. But where is the actual belt-tightening for Members of Congress ourselves? What are Members being called upon to sacrifice? Did we cut our own salaries to help spare layoffs for staff people making $25,000 a year? No. And how about the many Members of Congress who proudly talk about living in their offices. Are they going to start paying rent? They're essentially living rent free on the government dime. They use electricity, water and other taxpayer-paid-for resources. We have Members of Congress who are squatters in government buildings. And as a businessman, I can tell you that if I owned a piece of commercial real estate and decided to start saving money or rent by living in my office, I would be violating the law. So don't tell us that you're being frugal by living in our office. You're living free at the taxpayers' expense, any Member who does that.

And how about the cars that Members lease? I don't know too many Americans who have jobs that give them a free car to use however they choose, but Members of Congress have that benefit. And many abuse it with car leases that cost as much as $1,000 a month or more. Now, I appreciate there is an amendment on this issue, but those car leases should be eliminated in this bill, not capped at $1,000. Members would still be permitted to have cars that cost $950 a month paid for by taxpayers, at the same time we're slashing salaries of staff people making $25,000 or $30,000 a year.

In difficult economic times, it makes sense to cut back on everything. It makes sense to cut back on our own perks before laying off hardworking employees. Congress chose not to do this with this bill, and the closed process associated with this bill does not allow us to bring these proposals forward. When it comes time to cut, the majority has said hit the little guy, leave the big guy alone, hit the person who can least afford to go without. Talk about shared sacrifice right up until it involves giving up something that benefits you or your friends.

If you vote for this bill, Mr. Speaker, please do not tell me that you're willing to make the hard choices about the budget for the good of the Nation. You have made the easy choices. This bill cuts Members' day-to-day abilities to effectively represent constituents while leaving all of the perks of office untouched.

I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on both the rule and the bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

May I inquire as to the time remaining?

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. 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.

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.