Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the bill before us, paying particular attention to the work of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee. I first want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, for…
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of the bill before us, paying particular attention to the work of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
I first want to thank my colleagues, Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Lowey, for their leadership; and Ranking Member Ryan, who has been a gentleman and a scholar, for working with me to develop this product, a great example of how representatives from opposite sides of the line can work together and create a model bipartisanship to build great legislation for the American people.
Our total recommendation for the fiscal year 2018 Legislative Branch is $3.58 billion. In this bill, we focused on Capitol improvements, better security, more transparency and accountability all in a fiscally responsible manner.
First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, the House continues to lead by example in its frugal operations. With this bill, we will be spending 12 percent below the 2010 levels, showing the American people fiscal discipline starts here in our House operations first.
We also continue the policy of denying pay increases to Members of Congress for the eighth fiscal year in a row. This Republican Congress has tightened its belt since taking the majority, and we have never allowed a pay increase for Members of Congress, and we aren't allowing one today, saving taxpayers over $68 million since 2011.
In light of the recent shooting where Republican Members of Congress were targeted for their beliefs and our colleague and majority whip, Steve Scalise, was seriously wounded, this bill takes new focus on the security related to Congress, and I would like to recognize the United States Capitol Police Special Agents Crystal Griner and David Bailey.
As we all know in this body, the U.S. Capitol Police protect us, our staff, and the more than 9 million visitors we get here each year with bravery, putting their lives on the line each and every day to keep us safe.
Special Agents Griner and Bailey put that heroism on display for the country and the world when they saved numerous Members of Congress from an
attack at practice where some 25 of our colleagues were preparing for the Congressional Baseball Game for Charity. Their courage under fire saved the lives of countless Members of Congress, staff, and innocent bystanders, and both of them were wounded while carrying out their duties.
Steve Scalise, Matt Mika, and Zack Barth, who were also injured that day, and everyone else on that baseball field, are alive today because of those Capitol Police officers, and we continue to wish a speedy recovery to everyone who has been injured.
We, as a Congress, owe it to the Capitol Police to ensure they have the necessary resources to meet their mission in an increasingly polarized climate. And after working with Mr. Ryan, we believe we have appropriately prioritized those needs, taking a comprehensive approach to ensuring the safety and security of not only Members of Congress, but our staff, visitors, and the constituents we serve.
We provide resources and make structural changes that will address security concerns both here at the Capitol and in our home districts, including $29 million in new resources to the Capitol Police for increased security, $5 million to the House Sergeant at Arms for district office security, and support for House Administration's authorization to increase $25,000 per MRA account to address Members' physical security when they are away from the Capitol complex. We also invest new resources in cybersecurity measures to protect attacks on our digital information.
After more than 20 hearings, briefings, and tours of various portions of the Capitol complex since January, we have included $581 million in total for the Architect of the Capitol. We recognize the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current fiscal climate.
We have included funding to restore and renovate House office buildings, upgrade the Capitol Power Plant, and several other projects. We fund a Revitalization Fund to finance major repairs and renovations to facilities in the House for future years, and we are planning ahead to try and save costs.
Overall, we provided $648 million for the Library of Congress, with new funding going to IT improvements library-wide, as well as specific copyright modernization initiatives.
In total, we provided $48.5 million for the CBO. Members of this body on both sides of the aisle have their differences in opinion with CBO estimates and how it arrives at those conclusions. In some cases, frankly, the CBO is wrong, but, at the end of the day, it serves an important purpose and needs the appropriate resources to do its job.
We also increased funding for the Government Accountability Office to ensure that they root out fraud, waste, and abuse in government.
Mr. Chair, in crafting this project, Ranking Member Ryan and I sought the thoughtful feedback of Members throughout this committee and this body. There are various initiatives we can all be proud of, initiatives that serve our constituents and produce efficiencies and transparency in the way that Congress operates, including increasing openness and transparency and producing efficiencies by publishing nonconfidential CRS reports online, expanding the Wounded Warrior Project, which helps Members hire veterans. We increased total slots by more than 57 percent.
In conclusion, in all, this bill represents a frugal approach at funding the basic operations of Congress. We do so in a fiscally responsible manner, keeping House budgets historically low and prohibiting pay increases in Congress. We are improving transparency and accountability at the same time.
I would like to thank Ranking Member Ryan and his staff, Anne Sokolov and Adam Berg, as well as my staff, Tim Monahan, Liz Dawson, Jenny Panone, and Joe Eannello, and to all the members of the subcommittee for their work and participation in the process this year.
Mr. Chair, I urge this body support this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his amendment to add $1 million to the already $545 million that we spend on the Government Accountability Office.
The GAO plays an important role in being a government watchdog. They are the sort of watchdog of what happens in this city. And we are all certainly concerned, whether it is a Democrat or Republican President, that we want a GAO that can do its work and to root out fraud, waste, and abuse, provide economic data for Congress, help us to do our job in holding our government accountable, and help the American people hold our government accountable.
That is why we work on this bill, to keep funding steady for the GAO and to help centralize IG reports to make them ultimately public and online to increase transparency. But we have tight constraints on our budget.
Even so, while we work to fund additional security needs, critical infrastructure projects that need to be funded, and much-needed cybersecurity improvements, reducing the amount of money that goes to MRAs from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle would weaken our ability to represent our constituents, weaken our ability to effectively communicate with our constituents. I don't think that is the gentleman's intent here, but that would be the ultimate result.
We actually have a slight increase in what the GAO can spend in our budget, getting up to $545 million. So there is a slight increase here, and that is at a time in which many budgets are being decreased across Congress. Many of our constituents are tightening their belts and learning how to do more with less in the challenges they face putting food on the table for their families and really working in a family budget. We have to do the same thing here in Congress, Mr. Chairman.
The GAO actually gets slightly more money this year, and they have the ability to continue to carry out their function at $545 million. And I don't believe going to $546 million is going to achieve the significant changes that maybe Mr. Connolly would like to see.
Ultimately, we are not able to accommodate this request, Mr. Chairman. Our Member budgets are already 12 percent below what they were when the Republicans took over the House in 2010.
We are 12 percent below, even with this expenditure, and many Members are concerned that they don't have the resources to provide what they need to for their constituents. So cutting these budgets by $1 million more would only exacerbate those problems.
Mr. Chairman, we would have to oppose this amendment. We want the GAO to remain strong, and that is why we slightly increased their funding, but we can't really rob the MRA budgets to add to that with the many challenges we have and many priorities in this Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I am not opposed to it.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mrs. Love for her eloquence and leadership on this issue. She has provided a very serious proposal at a time in which, in light of the recent tragedy at a baseball park here in the suburbs of Virginia and what we have seen across the country, there are threats made daily against Members of Congress, both Democratic and Republican. In fact, threats are up this year over what they were all of last year combined.
We know many of these threats are simply just hot air or anger being expressed in an overly vitriolic way. We have all seen it on social media, on Twitter, on Facebook pages, things that are just really shocking and lack the discourse and the civility that we need to solve problems in this country. But it reaches a different level when Members of Congress are put in threatening situations where they or their families legitimately believe that someone may try to harm them. So we must ensure that we do everything we can to protect this institution, that we protect this government, that we protect democracy.
The idea that anyone in this body could be targeted based on their political beliefs, like my friend and our colleague, our majority whip, Steve Scalise, was when he was shot at a baseball practice by somebody who was specifically targeting Republicans for their beliefs, that is sort of new in the world of the shootings that we have seen around the country, that someone would be specifically targeted for their beliefs.
It happened to Republicans now; it could happen to Democrats the next time. So I think we stand unified as a Congress that we must improve the security in order to protect democracy.
We signed up for this, of course, and as my colleague, Mr. Richmond, said, our families didn't. Home security relates to our children, our families, making sure there are cameras or whatever improvements need to be made so that people know that, if someone were to try to attack them at their home, they would be protected.
In this bill, we have addressed security here in Washington, D.C. We have addressed security at our district offices at home. We have even allowed personal security. But what we haven't done is allowed some support for home security.
We have seen, in recent weeks, that the FEC has said you can spend campaign dollars for this, and I think it is a reasonable request that Mrs. Love is making, that others are standing up for, to allow the MRA to be utilized for that.
So I think what the gentlewoman is raising will help with peace of mind. It will help stem real attacks, is limited in its scope, and ultimately protects democracy. Members of Congress should not be intimidated or injured or worse because of what they believe in.
I ask the body to support this legislation, and I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, even though I do not oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Mr. Kildee for his leadership in bringing this to this body's attention.
I think the work of our men and women in service defending our Nation is the highest priority for this Congress, and our support for them in services, in healthcare, in helping them find work, in education, in training, all the things they need when they come home, I think we are unified in our support that they should be recognized as the heroes they are when they come back and leave service.
Some of these men and women, in putting themselves in the field of battle have become wounded, and sometimes very severely. They have stood in the field of battle. They have stood up to our enemies. They have protected freedom around the globe and here at home, keeping us and our allies, our children, our families safe, keeping freedom and democracy safe; yet, when they come home, all too often, they don't have everything they need. All too often, they don't feel that the promises this government has made have been kept. So each and every day I think we are working on legislation to improve that.
We have passed bills in recent weeks here to continue and improve veterans' programs, but the House Wounded Warrior Program is a great example of how this Congress is leading by example by creating 2-year fellowships for disabled veterans.
The unemployment rate is higher for these men and women than it is for nonveterans, and disabled veterans in particular, and so this fellowship program provides a valuable job, a valuable experience, an opportunity for these men and women to help serve their country, which is in their DNA. It is who they are.
When they are done serving on the battlefield, they can come serve in our congressional offices, and it provides a great service for us. They provide the opportunity for us to have an expert on not only veterans' issues and military issues, but many issues. They can cover a whole range of things, providing better services for us and our constituents.
In our legislation, the underlying bill, we increased the total number of fellowships to 85 from 54 because there is a waiting list. This is a 57 percent increase over the previous number. And 79 Member offices are on the waiting list right now to participate in this program, so the demand is there.
We certainly know that there are many veterans who would love to serve in this capacity, and so we are excited to support this amendment putting more resources into this program, and we are going to work with the gentleman from Michigan to make sure that we can open up slots in a timely manner to help make sure we get these men and women into the offices so they can serve.
Mr. Chairman, we support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island.
I, too, support the gentleman's efforts here, and, as a supporter of the BABIES Act, last year, H.R. 5147, I am happy to report, because of the language we included with the Architect of the Capitol last year, they presented a plan, which they are going to move forward with, which will install additional baby changing stations around campus, 54 of which will be going into House Office Buildings.
And as a father of two little girls, I have used these changing tables myself in restrooms from time to time, as Mr. Ryan has. I know he has got a young son. And so we know how important these are and how families, when they need to make a change, they need to make a change. They need to have a space to do that.
So we need to be family friendly here in the U.S. Capitol and in our House Office Buildings, and so I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue. It deserves attention. I will be happy to continue to work with the gentleman, as well as the Architect of the Capitol, to ensure that adequate number of changing stations are installed around the Capitol complex for families, for the 9 million visitors that come to this Capitol every year, that many of those have families with young children, that they are able to, as well as the Members of Congress like Mr. Ryan and ourselves and many others who have young children, use these changing stations as well.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend and colleague and co-chair of the Deaf Caucus, Mr. Takano from California, for bringing this amendment, and unfortunately, I cannot support it, Mr. Chairman, and we would ask that the body reject it.
You know, Congress terminated funding for the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995, so some 22 years ago, but it is back from the dead to be here on the floor today to be reestablished.
At one point, funding totaled over $20 million for the Office of Technology Assessment, but Congress did one of the things it has attempted to do in many areas, which is try to consolidate government, make government more efficient, make it do more with less, and so they transferred the functions from the Office of Technology Assessment over to the GAO.
We have heard debate on this floor within the last hour about the value of the GAO and the great work they do and how the GAO is a trustworthy organization and how it is important that we continue to fund them, yet, in this instance, they want to take these responsibilities away from the GAO.
In fact, in fiscal year 2008, a permanent technology assessment function within the GAO was established by a recommendation from the Senate Committee on Appropriations. They allocate at least $2.5 million per year to technology assessment, and they have established the capability to produce technology assessments in many areas.
They have hired scientists, engineers, and other technical specialists to respond to congressional requests. They produce three to four technology assessment reports each year. The GAO uses its technical staff to support other reports for Congress that have technology implications, such as privacy and vulnerability of computer components in cars.
The GAO receives three to four requests per year specifically for technology assessments, and many others have a technology as an aspect.
They have been able to testify on these topics recently on the Zika virus and on transfer of technologies developed with Federal research funds to the marketplace. They provide thorough and balanced analysis of critical technological innovations that affect our society, the environment, and the economy.
And so creating another Federal agency that is going to require additional resources and to have it offset from investment in capital projects, to me, is the wrong direction. I think, in current law, we have more than enough resources heading in this direction. Taxpayers are counting on us to find ways to spend less money, to keep programs efficient, and so the idea that we create a new agency that has been gone for 20 years today and fund it for millions of dollars, to me, is inconsistent with the values we all, I think, espouse about making government more efficient, more effective.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman from New Hampshire's amendment on postcard sizes, primarily because this issue has yet to go through any sort of process. We don't have information on the floor to know how this would affect Member offices. It has not gone through the Franking Commission or come before our committee, so I don't think it is ready for consideration and debate.
Franked mailings of standard postcard size currently only account for roughly 10 percent of the total franked mailings that Members send. This amendment would prohibit Members from sending mass mailings on their own letterhead. They wouldn't be able to send printed newsletters, fliers, letters, or regular or large postcards, among others.
I think it would really have a dramatic impact on the ability of Members of Congress to communicate with their constituents. They wouldn't be able to send them a letter or they wouldn't be able to send them a newsletter.
I certainly am about saving money and about making government more efficient, but this idea, I think, is not ready for prime time. I appreciate my colleague from New Hampshire bringing it forward, but I can't support it at this point, and I would oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell) for continuing the tradition that he and others, particularly in Oklahoma, for some reason, have focused on cutting out government waste, finding sometimes small things, sometimes big things, and all things in between that we can reduce, cut, or eliminate that saves taxpayers' money.
Mr. Chair, $1 million is big money in States like Kansas and Oklahoma and across the country. It is real dollars to the people who get up and pay their taxes to this country. There are too many million-dollar expenditures that happen in this government that are overlooked and unnecessary because they are not maybe big enough for folks here to take time to pay attention to.
What Mr. Russell is doing today is standing up for fiscal responsibility, for efficiency of government, and for helping the environment. This is wasted printed paper that is unnecessary. I think it is a good government measure that will help modernize and make our government more efficient and effective.
It is consistent with what this House has already done when it passed H.R. 195 earlier, which bars the distribution of the Federal Register to congressional offices and Federal agencies. That is in the Senate being marked up, maybe even today.
This is a smart amendment. It is the kind of thing that we need to keep doing more of to save money for taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Russell for his work, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.