Floor Statements

I thank the chairman for yielding the time, and I thank him for his leadership.

I urge all of my colleagues to support this conference report because I think it takes another step to change this culture of spending that we've had in this town to a culture of savings. And we actually spent less money this year than we spent last year.

When you look at the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, which I chair, you'll find that we reduced spending this year by 7\1/2\ percent. In fact, the money that we spend on the legislative branch is less than we spent last year, it's less than we spent in 2010, and it's less money than we spent in 2009.

When you look specifically at the House of Representatives, which we are all a part of, the last two cycles we have reduced spending on the House of Representatives by over 10 percent.

When we ask other agencies of the Federal Government to do more with less, to rein in spending, to tighten their belt, be more effective and be more efficient, we have not exempted ourselves from that, and we have led by example. Every Member's office account in this body has been reduced by 10 percent these last 2 years. The leadership offices have had their funding reduced by 10 percent, and the committees as well, even the Appropriations Committee, has been reduced by even more than 10 percent. So I think this is another step forward to fund our priorities but exercise spending discipline.

I certainly want to thank my ranking member, Mr. Honda, for his cooperation and hard work and thank all our staff members for their dedication and commitment, and I urge my colleagues to support this very good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the achievements of Dr. Lawrence A. Solberg, a Floridian who has dedicated his professional life to biomedical research and medicine.

Having published numerous articles in various publications and scientific journals and received professional recognition and honors from a number of organizations, Dr. Solberg has accomplished an extraordinary number of professional milestones and achievements.

Dr. Solberg is a hematologist currently in the Division of Hematology-Oncology at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida. He also serves as Vice-Chair of the Research Operations Management Team and Chair of the Clinical Research Subcommittee of the Mayo Clinic in Florida. Dr. Solberg previously served as Director of the Blood and Marrow Transplantation Program of the Mayo Clinic in Florida. As Professor of Medicine in the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Dr. Solberg has shown great commitment to educating our next generation of physicians and researchers, while continuing treatment of patients and his own research.

Service to the greater community is another attribute of Dr. Solberg's career. This is reflected in his service as Chair of the Board of Directors of Community Hospice of Northeast Florida for six years. Community Hospice of Northeast Florida is one of the largest non-profit hospices in the United States operating in 5 counties and serving up to 1000 patients, including 100 children, every day.

For the past four years, Dr. Solberg has chaired the Committee on Practice of the American Society of Hematology and has led the Society's efforts to educate Members of Congress about hematology and issues of concern to practitioners, such as Medicare physician payment, reimbursement of chemotherapy drugs, and the importance of clinical trials. In this capacity, Dr. Solberg has visited with me and my staff to educate us about the critical issues facing hematologists and patients in Florida and throughout the United States. Dr. Solberg has advised the Food & Drug Administration about how to address the current shortages of life-saving drugs; and has served on both public and private sector panels addressing how to improve the quality of care for patients.

Dr. Solberg is a superb advocate for his patients and his profession and his work has helped enhance the health and wellbeing of Floridians and all Americans. I am grateful for his lifetime contribution to field and practice of hematology.

Mr. Speaker, today is the first day of Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Week. Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis are diseases that collectively are known as inflammatory bowel disease. They are painful; they are incurable; they attack the digestive system; and they affect about one out of every 200 people in our country.

A few weeks ago, Congressman Jackson and I formed the Crohn's and Colitis Caucus to raise awareness in the Congress and to fight for additional Federal support, and Crohn's and Colitis Awareness Week is part of that effort. Today we will file a House Resolution which will support this awareness week. And hopefully, as we work with the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America, all Americans will use this week, this time to join in this fight to raise awareness to increase research and to find a cure for this debilitating disease.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make my colleagues aware of some legislation that I filed this week, along with 28 original cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans. The legislation was filed in the Senate, as well, so it's a bipartisan, bicameral effort. It's going to be known as the ABLE Act, Achieving a Better Life Experience. This is legislation that will paint a brighter future, make a brighter pathway for individuals with disabilities to meet the uncertainties that they face.

I think we all recognize that individuals with disabilities, be it autism, be it Down's syndrome, they face tremendous challenges today. They face struggles, both financial struggles and personal struggles, that most of us can't even imagine. And they face those struggles without the advantage that our Tax Code offers for a lot of people in our society.

For instance, if you want to save for college, you can set up a tax- free savings account. The proceeds grow tax free, and you can use those moneys to pay your college tuition. If you want to save for retirement, you can set up a tax-free savings account. Those proceeds grow tax free, and you can use those dollars in your retirement years. If you want to save for medical insurance premiums, you can set up a health savings account and that account has tax advantages. And yet there are no vehicles like that for individuals with disabilities.

You can imagine, there are real-world examples where individuals with disabilities, they receive certain government benefits; but if they accumulate more than $2,000 of assets in their

own name, then they're penalized. We have examples of individuals who have had to say ``no'' when somebody wanted to give them a birthday check, to say ``no'' when somebody said I'd like to help you with your housing.

We have to ask ourselves, is this any way to treat those among us who are the most disadvantaged? Of course it's not. The answer is, no. That's why we have created this legislation. That's why we proposed this ABLE Act. It's very simple; it's very straightforward. It's understandable. What it does is allow individuals with disabilities to set up a tax-free savings account as long as those proceeds are used for qualified expenses like maybe special equipment, maybe educational needs, maybe transportation or housing. It's only fair that we make our Tax Code deal with the injustice that goes on today. It's trying to make that Tax Code more fair to treat everyone more equal.

I think those of us who are more fortunate have an obligation to help those who are less fortunate. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to take a look at this. Again, it is bicameral, bipartisan; and it shows that we can work together to meet the needs of those among us who need our help. It is much needed and it's long overdue, and I hope we can pass it this year.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the bipartisan, bicameral Achieving a Better Life Experience Act of 2011. The ABLE Act is a much needed, long overdue, savings tool for individuals with disabilities.

I would like to thank my colleagues in the Senate, Senator Casey and Senator Burr for their tireless efforts to introduce a companion bill in the U.S. Senate. I would also like to thank Representative McMorris Rodgers for her pivotal role in crafting this meaningful legislation.

The federal government gives American families a helping hand in saving for the future. Accounts with special tax advantages

help people save for college, retirement, healthcare and other life events--but people with disabilities have different challenges for the future, some face decades of expenses that most of us cannot even imagine. Yet, they do not have access to the same advantages that our tax code provides others.

The average cost of raising a child with a significant medical disability is more than $1 million over the course of the child's lifetime. Continuing education, transportation, housing and medical care make up some of the predictable costs on that staggering bill. ABLE accounts would relieve some of that burden by allowing parents with disabled children or family members of disabled individuals to invest through a tax-deferred 529 account that could be drawn from for these future expenses. No longer would parents have to stand aside and watch as others use IRS-sanctioned tools to lay the groundwork for a brighter future. They would be able to do so for their children as well.

The ABLE Act amends Section 529 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the establishment of ABLE accounts for the care of family members with disabilities through tax-free savings accounts.

Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan, bicameral legislation tackles the unfairness in our tax code head-on by creating tax free savings accounts for individuals with disabilities. ABLE accounts will make long-term health, greater independence, and a fuller quality of life a possibility. No longer would individuals with disabilities have to stand on the sidelines and watch others use IRS-sanctioned tools to lay the groundwork for a brighter future.

The cost to reform the U.S. Tax Code to offer ABLE accounts would be minimal, but the positive impact for individuals with disabilities, their families and others who are struggling to cope with an uncertain future would be sizable.

We must move beyond the policies of the past that force individuals with disabilities to live in poverty. The ABLE Act allows individuals with disabilities to save, work, and earn just like any other American. As citizens of this great and prosperous country, we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. Helping disabled Americans ``achieve a better life experience'' is a step forward toward equality with every other American--and it's a step worth taking.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

On behalf of the Republican participants, I want to congratulate Captain Yarmuth and his team for their outstanding play and for their narrow victory, and I want to thank all the members of the Republican team for participating and for showing up.

I think the big winner is The First Tee.

I want to thank all the sponsors because, over the years, they've raised over $1.5 million for this organization that is involved in all 50 States and that touches the lives of about 5 million young people in order to teach them through the game of golf about honesty, integrity, character, and about sportsmanship.

So, again, I thank everyone for being involved.

I just remember the words of those people who watched the University of Florida football team, which are: Wait until next year.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

I just want to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this continuing resolution.

This body has been doing a lot of things to try to get the economy moving again, to try to put people back to work, create jobs. One of the ways we can do that is to change this culture of spending into a culture of saving. Quit crowding out the private sector so that the private sector can come in and do the job creation that we know they can do.

We've taken some giant steps on stopping all the spending that's gone on here. Last year we did some good things. Eventually we funded the government at less than last year's level, and this year we hoped that we would come in and do the individual Appropriations subcommittees. In the House we passed six of those through the full House. Unfortunately, the Senate only passed one, and so we find ourselves now in a situation where we have to pass a continuing resolution.

But, again, all the subcommittees that came before this full House funded their subcommittees at less than last year's level. We now have a continuing resolution that has funding that's less than last year. It's been agreed to by the House, agreed to by the Senate, and agreed to by the President.

And we can argue about the process. We can argue about whether it should be a little more or a little bit less. But we'll give ourselves until November 18 to finalize all the work that needs to be done. And so I think it's appropriate that we pass this, move forward, and continue to try to get a handle on the spending to help get our economy moving again.

Mr. Speaker, in 1961, Lester and Anne Scaff took a leap of faith and purchased a small market on US 41 in Lake City. At that time, the young couple had no idea that their lives and their business were about to grow into a lifetime of joy and community involvement.

Over the years they purchased more stores which came with new challenges to learn and grow. With a strong belief in customer service, the Scaff's growth continued through the 1980s and beyond. They expanded into eight surrounding counties and were able to target their growth to become a leading employer in the region. That original small company now owns 44 convenience stores and 3 Scaff's Markets.

However, from their corporate office, Lester and Anne Scaff still engage in the daily operations using the same careful, guiding hands that crafted the small one-store operation that grew into the people oriented, customer friendly business that exists today. They continue to be thankful for their customers over these 50 plus years.

S&S Food Stores and the Scaffs take pride in being good neighbors. Their commitment to serving their communities has been evident with the many fundraising activities and charitable contributions donated throughout the years. In fact, the S&S team members have collected close to a million dollars for the Children's Miracle Network/Shands Hospital.

Congratulations to Lester and Anne Scaff and the employees of S&S Food Stores for their 50 years of service to the State and their community.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 2551, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I appreciate very much the gentleman from New Jersey's passion for this program. He mentioned that they turned out the lights in 1996, some 15 years ago, and I can't help but wonder why the lights haven't been turned on in the last 15 years.

I talked to the gentleman yesterday, and I didn't know much about the OTA, but I couldn't help but wonder why, in the midst of the financial mess that we find our country in, he would pick this time to try to resuscitate a program that has lay sleeping for 15 years. I don't know whether he has tried every year to resuscitate this program and nobody was listening. I hope he has tried before. There were probably times when money was more plentiful and he might have had a better chance of bringing back a new program, a little more government, but I think this is just bad timing.

I told him that if he wants to continue to try to educate the Members and tell them what a wonderful program this was up until 1996, there may be some day that it would be resuscitated. But the Members should know that in 2008 we gave $2.5 million to the Government Accountability Office to do these kind of technological assessments, and they've been doing that for the last 4 years.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Well, reclaiming my time, if this was simply a question of education, I hope the gentleman has been working diligently for the past few years as hard as he worked for the last 24 hours to make people aware and to crank this thing back up. But again, this is the wrong time to try to start a new government program.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time, that's an interesting question too. I appreciate that question. And that $30 million is there to use to make sure that we protect the health and safety of people in our buildings here.

So I understand it won't cost any more money, but it's just a brand- new Federal program that I think is not a good time to be trying to do that. Again, if you've been trying to do that for the last 15 years and no one has been listening, then it must not be all that great a program. But once again, I appreciate your being a champion of that, and maybe someday it will come back to life.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just simply say, as I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this, again, I thank the gentleman for bringing it to our attention. It seems strange that it hasn't been funded for the last 15 years. I think this is not the year to crank it back up, resuscitate it. I think we have plenty of bipartisan research that's available to the Members. And maybe there are some private and nonprivate corporations, big foundations that might want to do this on a voluntarily basis. But again, I urge a negative vote.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I yield myself 1 minute simply to give you three good reasons why we should defeat this amendment.

Number one, it really doesn't do anything because we don't spend any

money in this bill for House restaurant services. They are funded through a revolving trust fund, and that money comes from another source. So it wouldn't have any impact in the first place.

Number two, if it did have any impact, all it would do is raise the cost of everything in the restaurants, which would be passed on to the folks. That's not a great thing, to spend more money.

Number three, my last good reason, the gentleman mentioned that this year there was a bipartisan letter from the chairman of the House Administration Committee along with the ranking member to say we tried this program and we're going to end it.

So for those three reasons, I think it is appropriate to vote ``no.''

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, Chairman Lungren, the chairman of the House Administration Committee and the author of the letter that ended the program in January.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), a member of the subcommittee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet on Monday next, when it shall convene at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate and noon for legislative business.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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 yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

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?

Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 41 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, July 22, 2011, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a hero of World War II, Private First Class Harold Kenner, United States Army. After 67 years, PFC Kenner is finally home and will be buried July 29 at Arlington National Cemetery with full military honors. It has been a long journey for this West Scranton, PA, native, but his story illustrates the military's commitment to bring its troops home--no matter how long it takes.

You see, PFC Kenner, a member of the Army's 401st Glider Infantry Regiment, G Company, was listed as missing in action on September 30, 1944, during Operation Market Garden in the Netherlands. The Allies used 933 gliders to bring its troops and supplies to the battlefield. The fight would last 72 days as the Allies tried to keep the corridor open in the Zon-Veghel area of Holland. The fighting was extremely heavy and so were the casualties. PFC Kenner died on that battlefield, but his body was not recovered.

PFC Kenner was buried in the Kiekberg Woods near Groesbeek, Netherlands, unbeknownst to the Army. His family was notified of his death, but they did not know what happened to him or his body. In 1987, remains were found at that gravesite, and recently, thanks to DNA samples those remains were positively identified as PFC Harold Kenner. Now, this brave American soldier will return to his homeland and rest among other heroes at Arlington.

Harold Kenner was only 20 years old when he died, but he was a member of the Greatest Generation. Posthumously, he was awarded the Purple Heart, Army Good Conduct Medal, American Campaign Medal, European- African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with two Bronze Service Stars and Bronze Arrowhead Device, World War II Victory Medal, Glider Badge, Honorable Service Lapel Button for World War II, French Croix de Guerre, Belgium Gourragere and Netherlands Orange Lanyard.

PFC Kenner died in the largest airborne operation in the war up to that point as the Allies attempted to seize a succession of bridges over the main rivers of the Nazi-occupied Netherlands, allowing them to outflank the Siegfried Line and advance into Northern Germany. The movie, A Bridge Too Far, told the story of this failed mission.

According to military records, members of Kenner's 401st and the 325th Glider Infantry regiments were dropped into an area around Grave and the Waal River in Nijmegen on September 23, 1944. They were dropped behind enemies lines and over the next week, PFC Kenner and his fellow soldiers were repeatedly attacked by the Germans. The wet, dense woods made it difficult for the men to navigate, and the weather resulted in rusted, jammed guns.

On the morning of September 30, the woods were lit up with a relentless barrage of artillery fire on both sides. Company commanders were ordered to move onward and continue the attack, despite the fact that their wounded were left in German positions. Heavily armed, the enemy held positions on both flanks. As the day wore on, G Company's communication lines broke down amid the chaos, leaving soldiers separated from their platoons and scattered throughout the dense woods. When the day finally ended, G Company had sustained heavy casualties, and five men were missing in action (MIA), including PFC Kenner.

A year later, on October 1, 1945, the War Department, despite never recovering a body, issued a finding of death for PFC Kenner. In the years that followed, the Kenners accepted that Harold was gone, but he was never out of their hearts.

The Army never gave up looking for the missing members of G Company in the Kiekberg Wood. Finally, in 1987, a second burial site was uncovered in the wooded area, two miles south of Groesbeck and seven miles southeast of Nijmegen. A Dutch search-and-recovery team turned the American soldier's remains over to the United States Army Memorial Affairs group in Europe. From there, PFC Kenner--not yet identified-- went to Hawaii to the Central Identification Laboratory. It was believed that the skeleton was, indeed, one of the missing five G Company soldiers; specifically 1st Lt. Joseph F. Myers. CIA determined it was a male who was 17 to 23 years of age, between 64 and 70 inches tall and had a fracture on the left forearm at or near the time of death. They also determined it was not Lt. Myers.

The remains were returned to the Netherlands in 2001. Five years later, the CIA decided to try to examine the remains against DNA supplied by family members of the other four missing G Company members. Using the DNA and dental records, it was concluded that the remains were PFC Harold Kenner.

Harold's mother and father, Henry and Pearl Kenner, and his two siblings, Henry and Ruth, are deceased. But 50 members of his family will attend his funeral and finally bring this true American hero home. His journey is a vivid reminder of the heroism and sacrifices of our troops and our military families, whether they serve today or yesteryear. Welcome home, PFC Harold Kenner, and may you now rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly gifted educator from Northeast Florida, Jackie Cornelius, who has been named Florida's Secondary School Principal of the Year.

With tireless dedication, Jackie guides young students and their teachers to achieve their best as principal of the Douglas Anderson School of the Arts in Jacksonville, Florida. You can accomplish anything if you truly believe in it--that is Jackie's philosophy, and she sticks to it.

With this award, her special brand of leadership will be shared across the country as she competes for national honors. It's really no surprise that Jackie has taken state-wide honors. Now, it's time for the rest of the Nation to have the opportunity to learn from this truly inspiring woman. Congratulations and best wishes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to two Florida Division of Forestry firefighters who perished in the line of duty on June 20 while fighting the Blue Ribbon Wildfire in Hamilton County, Florida.

On Monday, June 20, Josh Burch, 31, of Lake City, Florida, and Brett Fulton, 52, of White Springs, Florida, paid the ultimate price for our safety, giving up their lives for our protection. Our hearts and prayers go out to their families and loved ones as we remember the invaluable work that they and their fellow firefighters perform each and every day.

The Blue Ribbon fire has burned across hundreds of thousands of acres in Northeast Florida and taken the lives of two courageous and dedicated firefighters and family men. Let us honor Josh and Brett and never forget their sacrifice to Florida and the nation.