Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to thank Chairman Rogers and my ranking member, Nita Lowey, for the commitment that they made to regular order, which is why we have our second appropriations bill on the House floor by May 1. It is my hope that we can stay true to this commitment throughout the remainder of this year.
I also want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Tom Cole, who I really couldn't say enough good things about what an incredible partner he has been. We really have--and I will say that several times throughout my remarks--worked cooperatively, collaboratively, and I think the finest compliment that I can pay another Member is that they are an institutionalist--someone who has incredible respect for those that came before us and the history and tradition and all that has led to us being the finest democratic institution in the entire world.
We are stewards of the Capitol complex in the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, and the chairman really has most definitely recognized that and honored it.
The budget deal struck during the shutdown last year gave us 2 years of discretionary caps so that the Appropriations Committee can now get on with the business of funding important government programs.
There are many opinions about how these resources should be allocated amongst programs, but that is a legitimate debate, rather than the alternative, which we saw during the government shutdown last October.
For my part, I am pleased with and supportive of the bill that my good friend Chairman Cole has put forward today, done within the funding constraints that the Legislative Branch Subcommittee had to operate under. We worked collaboratively, and, as always, it was a pleasure to work with him.
The bill provides level funding, and, unfortunately, the constrained allocation has ensured that there is no increase for Member and committee offices. Personal office budgets have been cut by 16 percent since 2010, while committees have been cut by 14 percent over the same period. When considered through a long lens, those cuts are even more damaging.
The Congressional Research Service reported in August 2010 that House committee staff levels declined 28 percent between 1977 and 2009. The recent cuts have only served to compound the decline in staffing levels highlighted by CRS.
There is no question that these cuts will continue to have a harmful effect on this institution--on our ability to retain the best and brightest and to serve our constituents most effectively. We have gone through some difficult economic times, there is no question, but as we emerge, we need to consider how continuing these stark funding levels affects our ability to compete with the executive branch and the Senate for the best talent. When a Senator can offer to double the salary of a legislative assistant working for a House Member, there is an imbalance that we ignore in the House, at our peril.
I want to thank Chairman Cole also for the focus placed on the Copyright Office in this bill. In the FY 2015 budget hearing with the Library of Congress last month, we heard about the need to bring the copyright system into the 21st century with business practices that provide for more interaction and improvement with the copyright community.
This bill starts that process by investing $1.5 million in much-needed IT improvements for the Copyright Office. The bill also carves out $750,000 to deal with the copyright backlog, which grew larger over the last few years as they lost staff due to tightening budgets.
As the authorizing committees review our Nation's copyright laws, these additional investments will ensure that the Copyright Office can meet immediate needs as well as prepare for new ways to do business.
During the Capitol Police hearing and during subcommittee markup we heard from Members on both sides of the aisle about the impact door closures have had on our constituents and staff. This is why we included report language requesting a report on how the Capitol Police can accomplish door openings without increasing overtime. We have now received what I can only hope is a draft report from the Capitol Police that details the opening of only two doors for 2 1/2 hours each day.
The committee has been clear that access is one of the Capitol Police's top priorities, and the current plan does not reflect that priority. My expectation, which I know is shared by many Members, is that now that the Capitol Police have been provided essentially full relief from the sequester, multiple doors throughout the House should be staffed and opened for the entire workday.
Reducing overtime costs through door closures is unacceptable. Forcing our constituents, staff, and people trying to do business at the Capitol into long lines is inefficient and stressful for the public and the officers.
I will be asking the Chief to go back to the drawing board on this report.
The bill continues funding for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund at $70 million, for which I thank the chairman. Since the estimate to rehabilitate the Cannon House Office Building, which is 100 years old, has come in at a staggering $753 million, investing a little at a time in the trust fund is the most responsible way to fund this and other major projects.
The bill also includes funding for the final phase of the Capitol dome project at $21.2 million. The funding provided this year will address the interior walls, columns, and coffered ceiling that have sustained significant water damage and paint delamination.
The public will soon see the skyline of our Nation's Capital changed with scaffolding on the Capitol dome that will begin to go up at the end of this month, using funds from previous years. The total pricetag to restore the dome will be around $106 million after this year's funding is provided.
This bill also directs the Library of Congress to continue their 30-year program to deacidify books and provides an additional $1 million to keep that program on track.
Also of note, the bill cuts the Open World Leadership Center by 43 percent to $3.4 million. The Stennis Center Leadership program is funded at $430,000 after finally--and thankfully--providing the committee with a budget justification for the first time, on time.
I congratulate Chairman Cole on writing a balanced bill with a few targeted investments. Even though I wish we could do more--and I know he does too--to invest in our staff, I know that the chairman had many competing priorities, including our vast infrastructure needs.
Chairman Cole, again, I have truly enjoyed working with you in this role, and I appreciate the accommodations made for the minority in this bill. Working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle has been an absolute pleasure. It was a collaborative and cooperative effort. We are truly, I think, the example for the entire Congress on what collegiality means. The process in putting this bill together was really a team effort.
Chairman Cole understands that this may be the smallest appropriations bill, but one that is essential to his colleagues and the job they do to serve their constituents.
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the committee staff as well who has helped to craft this bill and assisted in a bipartisan manner: Shalanda Young; Liz Dawson, who continues to amaze us every single fiscal year; Chuck Turner; and Jenny Panone.
Also, we could not have done this without our personal staff: Maria Bowie and Sean Murphy, with Chairman Cole's personal office; and Ian Rayder from my office.
Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself 30 seconds just to note that the Government Printing Office has been in business, doing the work, beyond the scope of printing the Federal Register, for more than 100 years.
It is also important to note that they specifically contract with the private sector to print a myriad of documents, and they are not the only institution that prints documents.
Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Chair, I also rise in opposition to my Florida colleague's amendment, which seeks to dictate to other Members how to spend their office budgets. It is important to note that I also do not lease a vehicle.
The bill already sets a limit on what Members can spend on vehicle leases to ensure that costs are appropriately controlled. The Nugent amendment would go further and prevent long-term vehicle leases unless they are classified as mobile district offices.
The problem with the gentleman from Florida's amendment is the same as we have had with other similar amendments in the past that have sought to restrict or eliminate Members' use of funds for their office budgets.
We have Members that represent entire States or very large geographic areas. Removing transportation options for Members trying to effectively represent their constituents forces a one-size-fits-all approach to serving our congressional districts, and we know that is not reasonable nor does it make sense.
The House makes statements of disbursements available to the public so that our constituents can judge us on the purchases that we make. Each Member has to answer to his or her constituents if they spend inappropriately or if they make purchases that are at odds with the sensibilities of those that sent the Member to office. We don't need to dictate to each other how we can most effectively do our jobs.
With that, Madam Chair, I urge the defeat of this well-intentioned but misguided amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the gen tle lady from California's amendment, which would provide an additional $500,000 to the Office of Compliance. The funding is intended for the office to provide mandatory sexual harassment training for all congressional offices in the House of Representatives.
Surveys find that anywhere from 25 to 31 percent of women in the United States have experienced sexual harassment at work, with the majority of women reporting that the harasser was a direct supervisor or senior to them. Sexual harassment creates counterproductive, hostile, and potentially dangerous working environments, not only threatening the emotional and physical well-being of women, but also women's job performance and security.
There is no reason to think the House of Representatives is immune to this problem. The House of Representatives should not be exempt from providing proper training to identify, prevent, and report sexual harassment, as many private institutions undertake.
Additionally, this type of training is already mandatory for all executive branch agencies. It is time that we follow suit to ensure that the entire Federal Government is setting a model example for safety and respect in the workplace.
To that end, I have cosponsored Representative Speier's resolution, which amends the rules of the House to require that the mandatory annual ethics training offered to Members, officers, and employees of the House include the specific program of training in the prevention and deterrence of sexual harassment in employment.
I urge support of this amendment and thank the gen tle lady for her leadership on this issue, and I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment which seeks to cut over $3 million from the Architect of the Capitol's Botanic Garden--the people's Botanic Garden.
Now, I understand the gentleman from Arizona is trying to generate headlines by attempting to cut much-needed funding to one of the most beloved destinations in Washington, D.C., our Nation's Capital, but this is not the way to fix our Nation's deficit.
Over 200 years ago, George Washington had a vision for our Capital City to include a botanic garden that would demonstrate and promote the important role plant life plays in our Nation. It may seem trivial, but the Botanic Garden, established in 1820, is one of the oldest botanic gardens in the United States. It is also one of the most visited destinations on the Capitol complex. In fact, I know it is my own children's favorite place to visit when they come to Washington, D.C., and often our first stop.
Our constituents sent us here to do real work and look for real solutions to the deficit, not to try to score cheap political points by attacking important institutions that have already taken a fiscal hit, like the Botanic Garden.
The gentleman says that no line-item or opportunity can be looked over when it comes to reducing our deficit. Yet, I urge the gentleman if he is looking for ways to significantly reduce our deficit, to urge the House Republican leadership to address comprehensive immigration reform, which would result in a $900 million reduction in the deficit over the next 20 years. Going after a garden isn't the answer.
In fact, I think it is important to note that since President Obama took office, our deficit has been cut by more than 50 percent as a percentage of our GDP.
With that, I urge the Members to defeat this ill-advised amendment.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, this amendment cuts the small inflationary increase of $243,000 provided to the Capitol Visitor Center in this bill. This small increase is needed for the Capitol Visitor Center to keep up with inflation in order to provide the same level of service to our constituents next year as they are providing this year. When is enough enough?
My colleague must not be aware that the Capitol Visitor Center is 7 percent below the funding level that they were in fiscal year 2010. They have already contributed their fair share to deficit reduction.
If my colleague is serious about reducing the national debt and the deficit, then I would suggest that he stop voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act because the recent CBO estimate is that there would be a net increase of $109 billion to the deficit between 2013 and 2022 if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.
Perhaps he can call on his own leadership to reduce the deficit by $900 million by taking up and passing comprehensive immigration reform.
When I was chair of this subcommittee, I inherited a fiscal disaster in cost overruns during the construction of the Capitol Visitor Center. We were collaboratively and in a bipartisan way able to bring that project in for a soft landing and slow the hemorrhaging of Federal funds for a project that a Republican majority began.
Now, we recognized that the responsible thing was to ensure that this facility had the tools necessary to succeed, so that our visitors could have an informative and welcoming space to visit their government and to understand our democracy, so it baffles me that we would see an amendment that goes after the very organization that interacts with our constituents nearly every day.
I want those working in the Capitol Visitor Center to know that we appreciate the work they do. They are essential to the experience our constituents have when visiting our Nation's Capitol. With that, I urge defeat of the amendment.
Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, as a breast cancer survivor and one of the 129 million Americans who live in this country with a preexisting condition, I am thankful for the Affordable Care Act and the peace of mind it established on January 1 when, never again, an insurance company in this country could drop us or deny us coverage, the coverage that the gentleman from Georgia has repeatedly voted to take away from millions of Americans.
This amendment would cut the Capitol Visitor Center by $243,000, when we need to make sure that they have the cost of inflation increase, so they can continue to provide the good service that they provide to our constituents, so we can continue to educate Americans and everyone around the world about the finest democracy in the world.
Madam Chair, I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman, regretfully, because I know how passionate the gentleman from New Jersey is about this important issue.
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this well-intentioned amendment, which seeks to add $2.5 million to reestablish the Office of Technology Assessment, which did have an important scope of work for Congress during its existence in the 1990s. Unfortunately, the amendment takes the funding from the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund. This fund is critical for the long-term maintenance for such items as the Cannon House Office Building's rehabilitation, which is an ongoing project that has already begun. The fund was established so we could bank resources over several years for the revitalization of our House office buildings and stave off cost overruns that have plagued previous projects.
I have been a supporter of the Office of Technology Assessment dating back to my time as chair of this subcommittee. In fact, in fiscal years 2008-2010, I included $2.5 million in this bill within the Government Accountability Office for activities similar in scope to the work of OTA's. I also supported an identical amendment offered by Mr. Holt in fiscal year 2012, as the Cannon project had not yet commenced, but now that it has, I cannot support an amendment in good conscience that would take critical resources from a fund that supports ongoing rehabilitation projects on the Capitol complex. Perhaps, had the gentleman found another source for his funding, we could have been supportive.
I thank the gentleman for his passion on this issue, but I urge Members to vote against the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source