Reestablishing the House of Representatives Page Program.

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

I am pleased we are considering the fiscal year 2013 Legislative Branch appropriations bill. Chairman Crenshaw has been collegial in the development of this bill, and I appreciate his willingness to accept our input throughout the process.

The chairman's mark before us funds the legislative branch at $3.3 billion, a cut of 1 percent from fiscal year 2012, and this does not include Senate items. Even with a lower allocation, Chairman Crenshaw was able to level-fund and even increase several areas important to the operation of the legislative branch. The House, overall, is held flat at $1.225 billion. The Capitol Police will receive $360 million, a nearly 6 percent increase. The Congressional Budget Office is funded at $44.3 million, at $493,000 above the fiscal year 2012 level. And the Government Accountability Office is funded at $519.8 million--$8.5 million, or nearly 2 percent, above fiscal year 2012.

While the levels are adequate for some agencies, the allocation required the subcommittee to propose no funding to continue the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome, this Nation's great symbol of democracy. This bill's lack of funding for this critical project is a direct result of the House Republicans' unilateral decision to cast aside the funding levels agreed to under the Budget Control Act. The majority's decision required the Appropriations Committee to absorb $19 billion in reductions across all of the bills.

One issue that I continue to be concerned about is the House General Counsel's defense of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA. With the limited funding available for the House of Representatives, I think there are far more worthy uses of the precious taxpayers' resources than funding contracts for outside counsel to defend the highly controversial--and two U.S. district courts and a Federal appellate court have ruled unconstitutional--DOMA. I am concerned that the scarce resources available to the House will continue to be siphoned off in order to defend a law that continues to be found unconstitutional in the courts.

I am privileged to represent Silicon Valley, the center of technological innovation in this country. Since I joined the subcommittee, I have tried to push the House and other agencies to explore technological solutions to issues such as transparency, evacuation management, and data storage.

As you probably know, Federal agencies, including our own in the leg branch, can be slow to change and develop new technologies. This is mentioned in the report, which includes language on the issue of bulk- data downloads of legislative information, something I requested and secured language about in this bill in fiscal year 2009.

This effort is now being championed by leadership on both sides of the aisle, as it is a way to increase transparency by allowing the public to easily download and analyze government data. There are some concerns about cost and the ability to authenticate the data that the language in the report tries to address. I think, however, that these are relatively simple matters to overcome, as data is already being compiled in a format that can be easily distributed, and technology support staff has indicated that only a simple procedure is needed to make the bulk data available.

Furthermore, the GPO already employs an authentication standard for its own accessible bulk data through its FDSys, or the Federal Digital System, Web site that we could also utilize.

The House majority recently announced that it will immediately create a task force, as described in this bill, to expedite a report and implementation of public access to bulk legislative data. While I believe the time to implement this is now, I expect to be included in these efforts as ranking member of the subcommittee and a longtime advocate since before 2009.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate my appreciation for the chairman's effort to work with my side of the aisle on issues where there was agreement. I am glad to see the congressional support Agencies, including the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and the Congressional Research Service, are adequately funded.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hardworking professional staff that has helped to craft this bill and assisted the subcommittee in a bipartisan manner over the course of the year: Liz Dawson, Chuck Turner and Jenny Kesiah on the majority side, along with Michael Kirlin with Chairman Crenshaw's personal office, and Shalanda Young and Danny Cromer on our side of the aisle, along with Ken Takeda and Mark Nakamoto from my office.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to the amendment which seeks to cut $1.2 million from the Architect of the Capitol's Botanic Garden.

The hardest hit agency in this building is the Architect of the Capitol, which was cut by $52.5 million, or 11 percent, making it impossible to fund the Capitol dome restoration in this bill. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try to keep up with the maintenance of the Botanic Garden. Nevertheless, Members attack because they can get a good headline in the papers for cutting a garden.

To that effect, the author of this amendment put out a press release after offering this same amendment last year. In that press release, Representative Gosar stated:

The Botanic Garden has proven its ability to use tax

dollars in a cost-effective and efficient way.

If the Botanic Garden has indeed proven it's ability to use its tax dollars in a cost-effective manner, why is the gentleman targeting this agency?

The public should know that after this amendment, we still won't finish the dome restoration. We still have to rehabilitate the Cannon House Office Building. The gentleman from Arizona wants to make sure the Botanic Garden is added to the scrap heap of buildings that we are unable to keep in working condition.

Our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real solutions to the deficit, not to make political points by attacking institutions like the Botanic Garden, which was established back in 1820. As a Member of Congress, we have a responsibility to ensure that our Nation's heritage is kept intact for future generations by both tackling unnecessary spending, but also by making investments in our future.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.

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

I yield to my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Broun of Georgia

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the funding level of the Congressional Research Service by $878,000, returning it to the 2012 level.

He said that he's not doing anything to harm it because it's the same level as last year, but everybody knows that every year the cost of living, the cost of doing services, increases. So a flat, across-the- board push ahead kind of a budget is really a decrease. It's subtle, but it's still a decrease. I just want to let the gentleman know that that's the fact.

The other fact is the CRS is a research arm of the congressional Members. It's a research arm that we're able to use to do the kind of research that our folks really depend upon and is nonpartisan, is not biased in one way or another, and they are very professional in doing so. If we're expected to do the right kind of work for our constituency and then also for our country on issues, then we should be able to expect good work from our CRS.

In fact, Chairman Crenshaw and his staff should be commended for recognizing the funding shortfall that CRS has incurred in recent years.

As other congressional staff can attest, CRS is really essential to help Members to be able to perform the duties by this kind of a nonpartisan research and policy analysis. I believe this divided Congress should take more advantage of this unbiased resource and not reduce its capacity. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues do so also.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Washington Times, June 6, 2012]

Congressional Staffers, Public Shortchanged by High Turnover, Low Pay

(By Luke Rosiak)

The most powerful nation on Earth is run largely by 24-

year-olds.

High turnover and lack of experience in congressional

offices are leaving staffs increasingly without policy and

institutional knowledge, a Washington Times analysis of a

decade of House and Senate personnel records shows--leaving a

vacuum that usually is filled by lobbyists.

Most Senate staffers have worked in the Capitol for less

than three years. For most, it is their first job ever. In

House offices, one-third of staffers are in their first year,

while only 1 in 3 has worked there for five years or more.

Among the aides who work on powerful committees where the

nation's legislation takes shape, resumes are a little

longer: Half have four years of experience.

When Americans wonder why Congress can't seem to get

anything done, this could be a clue. It's also a sharp

difference from the average government employee: Unlike many

state and federal workers with comfortable salaries, pensions

and seemingly endless tenures, those in the halls of power

are more likely to be inexperienced and overworked.

Low pay for high-stress jobs with less-than-stellar

prospects for advancement takes a toll on institutional

memory and expertise.

While senators make $174,000, staff assistants and

legislative correspondents--by far the most common positions

in the Senate--have median pay of $30,000 and $35,000,

respectively, significantly less than Senate janitors and a

fairly low salary for college graduates in a city as

expensive as Washington.

Historical pay records were transcribed from book form by

the website Legistorm.

The size of committee and members' staffs have remained the

same over the past decade, and salaries have often not risen

with inflation--or at all.

The average legislative counsel in the House made $56,000

last year, less than in 2007. While pay for parking-lot

attendants in the House increased from $26,000 to $49,000 in

the past decade, pay for staff assistants, who make up the

bulk of the House's workforce, rose from $26,000 to $30,000.

That puts them in the bottom fifth of the region's college-

educated workforce.

It means that young workers have proximity to enormous

power while surviving on a meager budget--dual forces that

come together to push congressional staffers through the

``revolving door'' to highly paid K Street lobbyists. In the

revolving door, former congressional staff and members use

their personal connections and insider knowledge to attempt

to pull the levers of power on behalf of a paying client. A

former congressional staffer is among the most valuable

assets a company desiring legislative change can buy.

But it also means that staffers are often forced to rely on

lobbyists while they still work for Congress, sometimes for

the purest of reasons: While lobbyists with decades of

experience in energy policy or other arcane areas are common,

such depth of experience is nearly nonexistent on Capitol

Hill. Though 10 years of experience in a home-state office,

which handles constituent services and other less stressful

concerns, is not rare, a person with a decade of experience

is few and far between in Washington.

Without a foundation

``Who are congressional staff going to turn to?'' asked

Daniel Schuman, a former Congressional Research Service (CRS)

lawyer who now studies policy at the nonpartisan Sunlight

Foundation. ``The experienced staff aren't there. But

lobbyists and think tanks are beating down the door: `Here's

the legislation, here are the research materials and I've got

the co-sponsors lined up.' ''

As policy questions more frequently hinge on the nuances of

technical matters, members of Congress are operating without

the researchers and topical experts on which they have relied

to cast informed votes.

With the shuttering of the Office of Technology Assessment,

a 200-member congressional support agency that closed in 1995

under House Speaker Newt Gingrich, members who are largely

lawyers and rhetorical masters are asked to differentiate

between competing proposals that only scientists might be

able to evaluate effectively.

The technology office researched and summarized scientific

and technological matters, ranging from acid rain to wireless

phones, for members who, with an average age of 64 in the

Senate and 58 in the House, are legislating on matters such

as the Internet, which most spent much of their lives

without. Typical of its work products was a decades-ago

warning on the effect of technology on copyright law, a

question lawmakers contentiously grappled with this year.

``It helped us to . . . better oversee the science and

technology programs within the federal establishment,'' said

then-Rep. Amo Houghton, New York Republican, who served nine

terms before retiring in 2005. The role of CRS, which

provides research on topics beyond science and technology,

has also been rolled back.

Brian Darling, a former Senate staffer who is now senior

fellow for government studies at the conservative Heritage

Foundation, said he strongly supports smaller government, but

sometimes symbolic cuts can backfire.

``Cutbacks at CRS to me don't make a lot of sense, with

their institutional knowledge. They put out a great

nonpartisan work product. When crafting the legislative

branch appropriation bill, members of Congress are trying to

show they want to cut spending, but there can be

repercussions,'' he said.

Though it seems paradoxical, a lack of knowledge and

resources by congressional staffers can make for waste, Mr.

Schuman said, citing an inability to conduct oversight,

agency regulations that are left unchallenged, loopholes

slipped into laws that are giveaways for special interests

and poorly implemented programs.

He pointed to the creation of the Department of Homeland

Security.

``The department is a mess because people didn't understand

what would happen when you merge so many different agencies

with different cultures,'' he said. ``It is bloated,

inefficient and maladroit.''

A failure by Congress to ``understand the laws it passed''

and ``innovations in the private sector'' also led ultimately

to a huge crunch and the massive bailouts with taxpayer

money, he said.

Up and out

Consider the class of 2005. Of 186 Senate staff assistants

who started that year, 82 percent had left by last year, 13

percent were still in the same position and the remaining 5

percent have moved up a notch. Of Senate legislative

correspondents starting the same year, 83 percent have

departed and the rest moved up.

In the House, of 105 people who started as legislative

assistants, four made chief of staff in six years. Seven out

of 10 left, and almost all the rest got other promotions.

As that group has come or gone, multiple other layers of

congressional staff have been churned through. Among staffers

who moved on from Congress in early 2010, three-quarters of

departing staff assistants and legislative correspondents had

two years or less under their belts.

Even policy wonks in the most nonpolitical of positions,

``professional staff'' in the Senate committees where most

legislative work gets done, last only five years on average,

from the time they got their first job in Congress to the

time they found a new employer.

``When people get married or have kids, around 35, you

either jump up in pay by $50,000 or you get out of there

because you can't make it anymore. Making that money for 10

years puts people behind for the rest of their lives in terms

of retirement,'' Mr. Schuman said.

Most college-educated workers in the D.C. area earn $81,000

or more, with an average salary of $93,850, according to the

U.S. Census Bureau. For college grads under 30, the median

salary is $42,000.

Some 300 staffers who started in 2005 or 2006 are already

registered federal lobbyists, a Times review of records

indicated. They are preparing detailed policy papers, and in

some cases drafting proposed legislation, for their former

colleagues, and they have the time and resources to do a more

thorough job than those still there--though one that has a

slant in favor of their new, more generous employer.

``Staff are incredibly vulnerable to this. They're trying

to do a very complicated job with limited resources,'' Mr.

Schuman said.

As the federal government has grown dramatically over the

decades, the Congress in charge of overseeing it has stayed

the same or shrunk. A recent 10 percent reduction to

congressional offices' budgets is the latest major reduction.

``When times are going bad, lawmakers say we have to cut

Congress. But when things are going great, no one says it's

time to hire more staff. You get the Congress you pay for,''

Mr. Schuman said.

Mr. Darling acknowledged that salaries made it nearly

impossible for Congress to have many workers with significant

experience. But he likened the limitation to ``term limits''

for staff. He decried the deferred compensation system that

inspires some Hill staffers to make next to nothing for a few

years so they can cash in big as a lobbyist afterward, but

praised the idealists who toiled there.

``There's a perception that government workers are

underworked, and that's far from the case in Congress. In

fact, they tend to burn out and leave for higher-paid

positions,'' said Mr. Darling. Executive-branch bureaucrats

could take a lesson from their grueling workload, he added.

``The way Congress runs is the way the federal government

should run.''

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you for yielding.

I won't need the full 2 minutes because I think that the proponent, Congressman Holt, has done an excellent job in expressing our sentiment about the importance of the pocket Constitution. I appreciate the chairman of the authorizing committee, Congressman Lungren, and my chairperson for taking the initiative in moving forward on this and prodding the other body to make sure that they act on Resolution 90.

So I would urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment attempts to cut $1 million in the bill for the Open World program, and I want to emphasize the word ``attempts.'' I also want to emphasize that it's not my intent to support the idea of shutting down the program; it's the issue of the process of the gentleman's resolution.

Now, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the official bookkeeper of Congress, this amendment would net to zero. They believe that the organization would need at least $1 million to ramp down the organization. That's the CBO's impartial analysis. That means that this amendment has no effect. Maybe the gentleman did not know that, or maybe he disagrees with the Congressional Budget Office, but the Congressional Budget Office is a fine arbiter, and it has concluded that this amendment would not save one red cent. Again, this is a process of zeroing out, and you need that money.

But let me emphasize again that it is not my intent to support the idea of closing down the program at all; it is just my comment on the process.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include tabular and extraneous material on H.R. 5882.

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

Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we bring before the House today the 2013 appropriations bill for the Legislative Subcommittee. This is a bill that spends $3.3 billion, which is approximately 1 percent less than last year. That's a $33.4 million reduction from last year.

I think all of us know that we are living in difficult economic times in this country. Taxpayers want to know that when they send their money to Washington it's being spent wisely. We also know that government needs money to provide services, but right now government needs something more. The government needs a sense of discipline to rein in spending. The government needs a commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished and completed in a most efficient and most effective manner, more so than ever before.

Our subcommittee took this philosophy to heart, and we had a series of hearings. We listened to the Agency heads as they came before us and talked about their needs, their wants, their priorities. We considered all of that and made some very difficult, some tough, but I think workable, decisions that allow us to move forward.

I would remind the Members that over the last two cycles we have reduced spending on the Legislative Branch Subcommittee funding bill by almost 8 percent, and after we finish this bill, we will have decreased spending by nearly 9 percent.

So let me just give you all a summary of the highlights of this bill.

First and foremost, we fund the House of Representatives at $1.2 billion. That's the same level as last year. It's the same level that was requested by the House of Representatives. When people say, ``Well, why didn't you reduce the House any further?'' I would remind Members that over the last two cycles we have reduced funding for our own House by 10.5 percent. The Members' office accounts--the so-called Members' Representational Accounts--are funded at last year's level. Once again, when people say, ``Why didn't you cut those again?'' I would remind Members that we have cut those. The appropriations have been reduced by 13.5 percent for the office accounts. That takes us back to 2008 levels, which is a substantial cut.

We have certainly led by example. We have tightened our belts. We have reined in spending, and I think we can be proud of that. We also have language that allows Members, if they don't spend all of their office account, they can reduce the national debt with their leftover funds.

The Capitol Police receive about a $20 million increase. That will allow them to reduce the backlog in training that they have. It will also alleviate some of the salary shortfalls, because this is a year where we have the two national conventions and we also have the inauguration.

The Congressional Budget Office receives a very slight increase to acquire some much-needed equipment.

The Architect of the Capitol, which we fund, actually receives the largest reduction, about a 10 percent reduction. The Architect brings to us a series of projects that he would like to see funded. We can't fund them all, but we give priority to those that deal with health and safety issues because so many people work in the Capitol complex, so many visitors come here every year.

This subcommittee was concerned about the fact that we don't have the money right now to continue the rehabilitation of the Capitol dome, that great symbol of freedom that we see every day. We have spent $19 million to begin that rehabilitation project, and it's about $100 million to finish that. I'm confident we'll find the money very shortly and complete that project.

If you look at the Library of Congress, they receive a very modest increase.

The Government Accountability Office, the so-called watchdog of this Congress, they receive a slight increase to allow them to add 21 new full-time equivalent personnel. That will allow them to continue to write the reports that they write that tell us whether we're spending the money wisely or not.

And I think it will allow them to continue to meet the ever- increasing demands that we, as Members, place on them.

The Government Printing Office receives a cut, again, for the third straight year. They're doing a much better job of dealing with binding and printing of the information that they provide for us.

So, in a nutshell, Mr. Chairman, that summarizes the bill. I want to be sure and say thank you to all the members of the subcommittee, both the Democrats and Republicans, for the work

that they put in to bring this bill before us today.

I want to say a special word of thanks to my colleague, Mr. Honda, the ranking member. I thank him for his bipartisan spirit as we work together to fund these agencies that we depend on every day.

And, finally, I certainly want to express the gratitude of all the members of the committee to our staff, both the Democratic side and the Republican side, for the tireless effort they put in to bring this bill before us.

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH08JN12.003

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

I think this is a good bill. I think it has been adequately explained.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I know there is an amendment that is going to be offered by Mr. Gosar from Arizona, and I understand that he is just outside the Chamber at this very moment.

So I thought I would take a minute, while he comes to the floor, to just remind everyone of the great job that this subcommittee has done in working through all of the issues in order to bring them before the House. There are several amendments that are going to be offered here today, and we will certainly take those into consideration. From my standpoint, some of those amendments are good amendments, and there are some that I will oppose.

As we begin that process, I just want to, once again, thank everyone who has spent so much time and energy in bringing this to the House floor. In recognizing that this is the branch that funds the House of Representatives, which encompass all of the agencies that we look to to give us support, we wanted to make sure that they have adequate funds, because when they do a good job, it helps us to do a good job.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

In response to your question, I think it is in order, Mr. Dicks. I know that I, Mr. Honda, and you as well, Mr. Dicks, could strike the last word and make a comment or two if you'd like. Mr. Honda might want to say a word.

That's an excellent question. We ought to take a little time.

As you know, phase one is in process, and that's the skirt of the dome. You can see some of the work that's being done there. The next phase is much more expensive. I think it's a little over $100 million. As you know, we have an inauguration that's coming. So, during the inauguration, I would hope that we wouldn't have a lot of construction going on to impair the view of that beautiful dome. It is my desire that, as soon as the inauguration is over, we can find the funds, which is a priority of this subcommittee. We might even break that up into two or three phases, but certainly that work needs to be done.

As you have often pointed out, when you look up and see that magnificent structure, it looks wonderful. But when you get up close, there are some problems that we need to deal with. We want to deal with those as soon as we can, so I think it's just a matter of priority.

No, I don't think there is anything that makes it an emergency.

I think, clearly, like a lot of these projects that ought to be funded, the Architect has a long list of projects, and this is certainly one of those, so we want to be able to deal with that. It is a priority of this subcommittee, and we've talked about that. We want to make sure, as soon as we can, that we'll have the money to do that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

One of the reasons we have committee structure is so that the members of the subcommittee that I chair--and Mr. Honda is the ranking member. As I said earlier, we sit down. We listen to the AGG heads and the Architect of the Capitol, which is in charge of the budget for the Botanic Garden. They make difficult choices. They come to us, and we make difficult choices.

As I've said, we have reduced spending in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for 3 years in a row. We are now at a point where it is almost 9 percent less than it was 3 years ago. So if you just decide you want to stand up and cut another 10 percent of this budget and then say you really like the Botanic Garden, it seems to me that this is a function of the Architect of the Capitol.

It costs $12 million a year to have the Botanic Garden. A million people a year come to visit it and enjoy the beauty. If you're just going to stand up and say, Let's just cut 10 percent across the board, let's just start with the Botanic Garden, I don't know why you don't just cut 10 percent from the Capitol Police and 10 percent from some other areas. It just seems to be shortsighted.

We've gone through this process already. The Architect of the Capitol has said, I'm not going to ask for additional money to do some of the repairs I need to do. There's a need for a new roof and there's a need for some other things. They said, We're not going to ask for that because we're operating under the philosophy that we all believe here, that we ought to do more with less; we ought to try to do the best we can. So here we are.

I would just say that they're doing a good job. They're trying to control their costs. If we cut them any further, you really cripple them. You'll say to them that they can't have as many staff members, they'll have to close the Botanic Garden certain parts of the year. I think they've done a good job of managing their money. They have not asked for more dollars.

With that, I would urge Members to defeat this amendment, and I yield 2 minutes of my time in opposition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition, although I'm not necessarily opposed.

I want to say thank you to the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House and just from an informational standpoint make Members aware that in February this House passed what we call the Printing Resolution, which calls for the printing of the pocket Constitutions that he's talking about. The other body now has that piece of legislation. Like a lot of other pieces of legislation that that body finds itself in possession of, nothing has happened.

So I think it's appropriate for some of us to encourage the other body to take up the Printing Resolution, solve the problem. And, actually, I was told just this morning that I think the point of your amendment has actually had an impact because the other body, I am told, has indicated that they plan to move ahead with the Printing Resolution that we sent them earlier this year. So I think all in all, that's been positive.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Lungren, the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Honda.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Everything the gentleman said is true except for the fact that what we are doing in this bill is actually shutting down the Open World program. When you do that, there are some costs involved in the final shutdown, and that's why last year this was funded at $10 million. To shut down the program, we basically took away $9 million, left $1 million there to terminate the existing contracts that we have. There's some final compensation that has to be paid. They have to close some offices. There are potential unemployment claims.

And so the point of this bill is to do exactly as the gentleman suggests, and that is to shut down this program which probably at one time was a very worthwhile program and was, I guess, a program that you could afford. But in today's world, this is a program that, under this legislative subcommittee, doesn't seem to be the right place to find funding. There were attempts in the past to fund it under the State- Foreign Operations Subcommittee.

But bottom line, the goal of this committee is to shut down this program because we can't afford it anymore. Even if you pass this amendment, it still costs a million dollars to shut down the program. The Congressional Budget Office scores it as a million dollars.

So I would say we ought not to pass this amendment. We ought to continue the process that has been started to shut down this program, and these dollars will be used to do just that.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the former ranking member of the Legislative Branch.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we don't use any appropriated funds to buy polystyrene containers. I just want to make that point that we don't use any appropriated money to do that.

I want to recognize a valued member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you for yielding. I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think it's well-intentioned. I think it's a good idea.

I'm just curious as to how you decided to have 50 copies instead of 213.

How many copies will the Appropriations Committee get under your amendment?

If the gentleman will further yield, I just want to say I think that's a very good amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, if the gentleman has a problem with communicating with constituents, then I think he ought to take his gripes to the Franking Commission.

I think everyone knows in this House that Members have an office account, and the philosophy is that you have an office account, you run your office. You are held accountable for how you spend those dollars. Some dollars are spent for salaries, for equipment, for rent, and for communications.

When the communications are paid for with taxpayers' dollars, they are

subject to review by what's called the Franking Commission. That is a bipartisan commission, made up of Democrats, made up of Republicans. And before any kind of communication is put forward--whether it's a newsletter, maybe it is a postcard--before anything goes out, there are very strict guidelines that the Franking Commission uses to decide what goes in to those communication pieces.

Under the rules, Members are allowed to use their MRA, their office account, that's funded by taxpayers dollars. They can, if they want to announce they're going to have a town hall meeting, they can send out a postcard, they can send out a letter. They can actually buy advertising in a newspaper, as long as it meets the requirements of the Franking Commission. And they are very strict about how big your name can be and how many pictures you can have.

You can also buy time, buy advertising on the radio. If you want to say, ``I'm going to have a meeting, and we're going to decide whether or not to appoint people to the military academies,'' you can do that. You can also use the Internet for that. Quite frankly, in today's world, that's how most people get their information. I'm not a tech guy, but I understand that social media is how a lot of young people and old people, as well, communicate.

If you want to communicate through the Internet, then you should have the same rules and regulations that apply to the print. You have to go to the Franking Commission, and they approve it. Again, Democrats and Republicans, they're making sure that these are official notices. They can direct you to your own Web site. Most Members have Web sites, and they can announce things on there.

So it seems strange to me to single out this new social media, which is where the world seems to be going. That's how people get their information. It's a lot cheaper to communicate on the Internet than it is to mail a letter or to mail a post card. It seems to me this is just an effort to micromanage how the Members use their MRAs, and you single out the one area in which the world seems to be going. So it's like a step backwards to say that you can communicate, that you can buy advertising on the radio, that you can buy an ad in a newspaper as long as you comply with these franking rules but that you can't do it with the Internet. It just seems like a strange way to go. Once again, all of this is subject to review by the Franking Commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, in order to make sure that all of that is appropriate.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California, the chairman of the House Administration Committee, Mr. Lungren.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Madam Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit and vote for this very good bill.

Now, I'm not surprised that the Democrats don't like this bill. This funding bill spends less money than last year, and last year's bill spent less than the year before. So for 3 straight years we've reduced spending in the legislative branch. We've reduced spending on ourselves. So don't tell us we haven't shared in the pain. We are doing in this bill what we ask every agency or State government to do. We are doing in this bill what every American family does. We are setting priorities. We are tightening our belt. We are reining in spending. We are doing more with less. No wonder they don't like it.

So I say let's pass this bill, reject this motion to recommit, and cast a vote for fiscal responsibility by voting ``yes.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5882, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act. As chairman of the Committee on House Administration, which oversees many of the agencies affected by these appropriations, I am pleased we are continuing to uphold our pledge to reduce government spending, while providing the necessary security and support for each Member to fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.

Since taking control of the House, we've worked diligently to identify and eliminate wasteful spending and streamline and improve operations by using technology, thereby saving taxpayers millions. We've also worked to reduce spending on the production and printing of unnecessary publications, including an amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Harper, to reduce the number of copies of the U.S. Code printed for the House.

With the support of the Appropriations Committee, we will further improve House technology through an advancement of programs utilized by the Law Revision Counsel and the Office of the Legislative Counsel that modernize and improve their capabilities.

Utilizing new technologies, we will continue to increase the accuracy and accessibility of legislative proposals and changes to the U.S. Code. As the people's House, it is imperative we continue to use technological innovations to foster transparency and provide our constituents with timely and accurate information.

I'd like to thank the appropriators for their support in providing the resources necessary to enhance and streamline House operations and reduce overall expenses. And later, when we have an amendment on the floor that once again tries to make us go backward in our effort to get rid of waste produced in this House, I will stand and oppose that.

We have had a successful program of converting waste to energy, one of the most innovative programs in the entire country. We've convinced the other side of the Capitol, the Senate, to join us. We have thousands of tons of waste now not going into landfills but being converted to clean energy, one of the best examples of a technology that the EPA says is one of the cleanest in the country. We ought to be thankful for that. We ought not to go backwards. We ought to understand.

And in doing that, we have also given best or better customer service to those who utilize the various restaurants on the campus here in the Capitol. Those are things that we ought to be proud of and not be shy about the successes that we have had.

So I'll still be here on the floor to talk about one of those amendments, as we did just a year ago.

The gentleman is correct, we did pass a resolution over to the other body. It is customary that either body determine what their printing needs are, but we do have to normally have a resolution for it.

Under Mr. Harper's direction, with the Joint Committee on Printing, we actually reduced our request by 50 percent to save money, but also to give adequate printing of what we thought was needed. The other body initially decided that they didn't need any more copies. They have now reassessed that and at the last minute have indicated to us that they see the need for doing that and have promised us that they will act on our resolution.

So this is a hope that maybe this is one thing that they can agree on sending out of their body this year and over to us. But in the meantime, the gentleman's amendment is appropriate. Let us not lose the Constitution over this.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Last year we had this argument. Last year, it was criticism of the fact that I had approved a contract that got rid of the composting and instead that started a pilot project, I believe, in the gentleman from Virginia's district, where we are taking all of this and we are converting it from waste energy in the gentleman's district--one of the exemplary programs in the country. We're not putting this into a landfill; we are actually converting it. In fact, these products are one of the best means of creating energy from waste.

The second thing is, this is a condemnation of an industry that employs about 50,000 Americans around the country that deal with the production of this product. I would say they have come to me and said: Can you at least defend us with the facts, that the FDA has to approve use for sale of these products that come into human contact. If it were carcinogenic, it would not be allowed.

The fact of the matter is, we used common sense. We actually took up a recommendation by the Democrats when the Republicans took over. One of the recommendations that was made in writing was that we eliminate the composting program because it cost too much money, it was unsuccessful, and in fact it caused more energy than it was supposed to save. We did that. I thought you were going to thank us for following your suggestion. We even put it in the gentleman's district--proud employees of the gentleman's constituency are reducing this waste to energy, and yet the gentleman comes before us and says the program that you have in my district, doggone it, we just don't want it. Sometimes people around here can't take yes for an answer.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I would just like to advise all Members that we have full-time employees working under the direction of Members of the Franking Commission and the House administration every single day who review the products of the offices of Members.

There is a limitation on the number of references you can make to yourself. There is a limitation on the number of pictures you can have. There is a limitation on how large the pictures can be. There is a limitation on some of the language that there can be. We try not to censor, but we try to make a distinction between that which is partisanly political and that which is a communication to our membership.

If someone is trying to suggest that we ought not to be allowed to ask our constituents ``What is your position on a balanced budget amendment?'' I'd like to say that you have that right. If you don't want to ask that question, you don't have to ask that question, but that's for Members to be able to do that.

Frankly, I think the idea that somehow we ought to limit our communications to the old-fashioned snail mail is just wrong. What we've attempted to do is to use the principles that have been established by the Franking Commission over the years to the new technology. That is simply what we have done. It is no more or no less. If people want to complain about particular messages that have come out, we can look at that. In fact, we turn down many, many suggested pieces to be sent out by Members of Congress. We have tried to adjust to the new communications, and the gentleman's amendment would not allow us to use a new means of communication.

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

The amendment that I bring forward zeroes out the Open World Leadership Center. This is a subset of the Library of Congress. This is an agency that's received millions of dollars over the years-- in fact, $123 million over the past 10 years--to bring foreign government leaders from countries like Russia and others to the United States, something that might be a good idea but, frankly, when you consider the fact that we're running massive deficits, have a mountain of debt that keeps building up, we have to cut back programs that we just can't afford to do. And clearly, this is one of those programs.

I do applaud the chairman and the committee for reducing this account. Although it's been reduced, there's still a million dollars remaining in the account. Ultimately, what we do is completely eliminate that funding. The reason that we're doing this, if you go back--and we've looked at the Congressional Record over the years, going back to 2009--Congress has been very clear to this agency, the Open World Leadership Center, that it's time for them to stop receiving government money.

Just look at the comments from April 21 of 2010. At the time, Chairman Wasserman Schultz said:

Our subcommittee's stated goal has been that we would begin

to wean you off your reliance on Legislative Branch funding,

so it is somewhat difficult for me to understand why you have

asked for $2 million more in funding.

This is an agency, Mr. Chairman, that has shown an unwillingness to work with Congress who for years now has said it's time for you to stop getting government money. This isn't some new development. This is something that Republicans and Democrats have agreed on for years, and it's finally time for that government funding to end. And if they want to continue doing the work they do, they can still go seek private funding, which, by the way, Congress encouraged them to do years ago, but they refused to do that because they still had the ability to get government money. As long as we leave a million in this account, we continue to allow this agency, the Open World Leadership Center, to function when we've now, as a policy decision, finally said it's time for them to go.

So with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.

Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to close, and I would first like to address some of the issues that were brought up during this discussion.

As it relates to the idea of having exchanges with people from foreign countries, that's why we have a State Department. And, in fact, the State Department has programs that do just that.

The Open World Leadership Center is a program run by the Library of Congress. If this program were so important to national security and relations with foreign countries, then the State Department would pick it up, but they haven't chosen to do that because they already do programs that are similar. But they probably do it a lot more effectively, and it's a lot more coordinated with the State Department because it's run out of the State Department.

So now you have a separate, duplicative program that Congress, both Republican and Democrat Members, for 3 years now has been saying, It's time for you to go.

And I go back again to the June 2009 committee hearing. The committee recommendation begins a phaseout of Legislative Branch financial support for the Open World program. That was the committee recommendation in 2009. Republicans weren't running the House back then. That was under Democratic leadership.

And of course in 2010, the chairman at the time, Ms. Wasserman Schultz from the opposing party said:

Our subcommittee's stated goal has been that we would begin

to wean you off your reliance on Legislative Branch funding.

Yet that same year, they asked for $2 million more.

This is an agency that just doesn't get it, and this represents what's wrong with Washington when we're going broke. We are going broke right now. Every single day, every dollar spent here in Washington, 42 cents of that dollar is borrowed money, borrowed from countries like China, sending the bill to our kids and our grandkids. And here we've got a program that even Congress, Republican and Democrats, said it's time for the program to end, and yet they still have a million dollars sitting in their budget.

So what you would have is seven employees. They have a staff of seven people. So you've taken $10 million away, and I applaud, again, the chairman for doing that. So you've said there will be no more program. There will be no more exchange. That's been a decision already made by the committee, the subcommittee. But you're leaving seven people to be paid to do absolutely nothing with money we don't have.

Now, how many small businesses across the country that have been facing these tough economic times are given a million-dollar check by the Federal Government to close down? Unfortunately, so many businesses have closed down because times are tough, but they don't get a million dollars from the Federal Government to do it, especially with money borrowed from China.

And now I would go to address the CBO issue. We actually asked CBO about this amendment. We asked them on Monday. Here's a letter from CBO. On Monday they said:

At this point, we estimate that your amendment would have

no score.

So there is no cost to doing this, but it is a million dollars less that we'll be borrowing from China. And at some point they say a million dollars here, a million dollars there, pretty soon you're talking about real money.

We need to start making these tough decisions, and, frankly, this one isn't that tough. We ought to eliminate this program.

And I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chair, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

The Botanic Garden is a national treasure.

The history of the Botanic Garden starts over 200 years ago. Originally, the idea for a Botanic Garden came from George Washington himself.

Congress formally established the Garden in 1820 and it is one of the oldest botanic gardens in North America.

The Botanic Garden is dedicated to demonstrating the aesthetic, cultural, economic, therapeutic and ecological importance of plants to the well-being of humankind.

More than 750,000 visitors a year experience the Botanic Garden's plants displays, innovative exhibits, and special programs.

The Botanic Garden maintains 13,000 accessions, which equates to about 26,000 plants.

Its noteworthy collections include medicinal plants, rare species, orchids, carnivorous plants, cacti, bromeliads, cycads and ferns. Some of the plant specimens date back to the Garden's original 1842 founding collection.

There is no better place to gain an understanding of the essential relationship of plants to human life than at the Garden. Through living displays that feature the biodiversity of plants from around the world, the Garden brings to light the many benefits derived from plants including oxygen, food, medicine, fiber, fragrance, shelter, and inspiration.

Education is also a critical mission of the Botanic Garden. It creates opportunities to inspire our visitors to learn about the importance of plants and presents a variety of educational programming to visitors, teachers, and students.

The Botanic Garden partners with the Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Wildlife Federation, the National Gardening Association and other domestic and international botanic gardens on its outreach programs to maximize its educational impact.

Mr. Chairman, this botanic collection is a global treasure.

Globally, about one in every eight known plant species is threatened or nearing extinction. In the United States, the figure rises to about three in every ten plant species.

Humans are inextricably interwined with plants and other life forms, locked in a dynamic, co-dependent struggle for survival. It is in our own self-interest to pay them more attention.

Moreover, the Botanic Garden has a backlog of capital renewal and deferred maintenance projects of over $14.5 million, which is $2.5 million more than its total budget in this bill.

If Mr. Gosar's amendment is accepted, it is likely to cost more taxpayer dollars as staff will likely have to be furloughed, the number of deferred maintenance projects will increase, and there will be less educational opportunities for students.

While we have serious fiscal challenges in this country, the U.S. Botanic Garden is not part of the problem.

Let's prosecute Wall Street wrong doings and recoup the billions upon billions used on bailouts rather than pick on the U.S. Botanic Garden.

I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment.

I just want to thank Congressman Honda, the ranking member, for yielding me just a brief moment here to oppose this amendment and put comments on the record.

I oppose the Gosar amendment and the cuts to the United States Botanic Garden. Unless you've actually walked through the aisles and looked at the extraordinary collections, and exhibits, including specimens that preserve the genomes of extinct plants; and if you haven't really understood why medical science depends on many of the medicinal plants that are held there for posterity; and if you haven't really appreciated the importance of the botanical sciences to human life; and if you haven't understood the work of the Botanic Garden that links to hundreds of communities across this country trying to help communities raise food, even inside urban borders and food deserts-- then you really can't come to appreciate the importance of the fragility of life and how significant this botanical collection is to our country. This is a collection and capability that has been understood since George Washington's time over decades and indeed centuries. Our predecessors appreciated the importance of botanical sciences to human life even with science as rudimentary as it was at our Nation's founding. The site itself is nestled right adjacent to the Capitol, demonstrating the importance to the American people that those who came before us understood--the importance of the linkage between human life and plant life. Some of the most important scientific breakthroughs that we've had in medicine, for example, come from the plant kingdom.

I think that though the gentleman may have a good goal in mind in trying to handle our accounts in a more responsible way, this is a very irresponsible way to do it. Why? Because if the botanic garden has to cut existing contracts, or if they have to lay off workers, or put off longer deferred main tenancy, in the end what appears to be a cut may actually prove to be a budgetary increase over time in additional costs. Truly this cut is rather draconian cuts to the Architect of the Capitol.

I just wanted to say in a prior iteration of his amendment, the gentleman actually issued a press release saying the Botanic Garden has proven its ability to use tax dollars in a cost-effective and efficient way. I don't know how he might have changed his mind on that, but I think for the good of the country, for the future of medical science, for the linkage of this scientific collection to communities across the country, the Botanical Garden has proven its worth.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the opportunity to place my remarks on the record.