Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2016
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, let me just point out that the chairman is right: we do have to lead by example.
Leading by example, as we have in the past, like last fiscal year--after the President submitted his budget, we certainly could have and should have, as a Congress, sat down with the President and negotiated an adjustment to the sequester, which we were able to successfully do last year, and that was to the betterment of making sure that people who are simply trying to succeed have the opportunity to do so in this country instead of living under the severe cuts and caps that sequestration forced us into. That is Congress' job, which we abdicated. That was not the choice of the minority; it was the choice of the majority.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the ranking member of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I intend to claim time in opposition to the amendment that addresses Open World a little bit later, which I know will come as a surprise to the chairman, I do want to point out now that what the chairman says is not quite accurate, which is why I am going to oppose the amendment. Because were we--and there were a number of options available to the Rules Committee--taking the $5 million that is going to Open World in the Legislative Branch bill now and putting it in to some other place in the Legislative Branch bill, life safety programs, restoring the cuts to GPO, or doing something that is going to make sure that the legislative branch can be competitive and has the ability to get our work done, then that would have been fine, because I agree that Open World is actually a square peg in a round hole and shouldn't be funded out of this bill, and I have made that case for many years.
Instead, what the majority did is they took an amendment that takes that $5 million and puts it into the spending reduction account. We are already $106 million below 2010 levels in our MRA, in our office accounts. This bill is flat-funded for 3 years in a row. We are doing ourselves a disservice and making it difficult for us to do our jobs when we had a ripe opportunity to take that $5 million--which I would have been for--and put it somewhere in the Legislative Branch bill instead of sending it out of here. That is not responsible.
Additionally, I will point out that perhaps the chairman's comments about sequestration demonstrate that he thinks that Congress' hands are tied and that we don't have the ability to actually make changes. The President has proposed what he believes we should do as an alternative to the sequester. That was his proposed budget.
Like last year, we also have the ability to set aside and work with the administration--set aside at least part of the sequester--so we could provide improved allocations for each of these appropriations bills and make sure that we can make life better for more Americans. Unfortunately, the majority continues to act as if somehow we are frozen in time and that we are paralyzed by sequestration as the law. The last time I checked, the Founding Fathers in the Constitution gave Congress the ability to change the law, which we should do.
Mr. Chairman, I will look forward to discussing some of the amendments that we will be debating in a few moments.
Again, I want to thank the chairman for, really, the opportunity to spend some time focusing on the needs of the legislative branch and giving us the ability to at least move forward in some ways towards addressing our role as a coequal branch of government. I think this bill could have been far better. It has made several positive changes, but as I have outlined, we have places where we disagree, but we did it without being disagreeable.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I want to note for the Members that this would be the first time that I am actually opposing an amendment that cuts the Open World program.
Initially, when I became chair of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee 8 years ago, this program was at $14 million. I have consistently tried to cut this program and move its funding to the State Department bill for every single year since then. We have not been successful, but we are only at $5.7 million now, which is a more appropriate amount.
We are, as I said, in general debate. This funding going somewhere else in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill would be more appropriate. Since we are sending it out of the bill in a bill that is already inadequately funded, it is not an amendment I can support.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), who wishes to speak in opposition to the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, what this amendment is, is a missed opportunity to be fiscally responsible.
I also support not spending money on the Open World program any longer and moving it to the State Department. Unfortunately, the majority has chosen to make a rule in order that focuses on an amendment to shift the $5.7 million completely out of the legislative branch when we have plaster falling off buildings, elevators badly in need of repair, we have cuts to our MRA--our office accounts--our staff that isn't well paid enough; and it just not responsible.
This is a missed opportunity. I urge the Members, unfortunately, to oppose the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I think it is worth stating for the Record that this amendment would maybe save somewhere between $9,000 and $29,000. I mean, let's bear the full impact of that weighty sum, depending on how it is interpreted.
This is an amendment that would prevent the delivery of a printed copy that I have in my hand of the Congressional Pictorial Directory--which, by the way, Mr. Flores, no offense, but some of us used this directory to identify you during the course of this discussion.
This is a book that is actually necessary and one that we shouldn't be farming out or relying on lobbyists to print for us.
Every year, we seem to get an amendment that stops some sort of printing or delivery of a paper copy of some document to Member offices.
Just so Members know, we have actually made real savings in this bill in the past--in the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill--by no longer delivering a printed copy of a bill unless a Member requests a copy; we no longer deliver the Congressional Record to Member offices; we no longer allow more than 50 printed copies of the Code to go to House offices; we no longer deliver a printed copy of the statements of disbursement to Member offices; we no longer deliver a printed copy of the daily calendar to Member offices--all of which cost far more than stopping the printing of these books.
It isn't really realistic to expect Members to print out a piece of paper--or staff--and carry around a whole bunch of printed faded copies of paper to help identify Members. We have new Members every 2 years.
My point is we are about out of low-hanging fruit here. I hope this is the last of this type of amendment because, if we want to change printing, the Members have an opportunity to take their grievances up with the Joint Committee on Printing.
The distribution of the Congressional Pictorial Directory is actually set by the Joint Committee on Printing. Maybe the gentleman is unaware of that, and it doesn't need to be legislated through this bill. We don't need to be creating a false impression that we are actually saving taxpayer dollars that would not have been saved through another means.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am wondering whether that app was privately produced or was produced by taxpayers. As for the $1.99 that you spent on it, were those taxpayer dollars you used to pay for it or from your own personal funds?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, my point is that it would be one thing if a congressional tutorial directory were unnecessary, but that is not the case. It is necessary. What isn't necessary is for us to be wasting time in debate on the House floor over something that could actually be handled differently. If the gentleman or any other Member thought that the Joint Committee on Printing should handle it differently, just go talk to them.
Instead, what we are doing is pretending that we are actually saving taxpayer dollars. This is about $9,000, and what we shouldn't be doing is outsourcing the things that we need in terms of the materials to do a better job serving the public to lobbyists and the private sector. That does not make sense, and it isn't necessary, and the majority should not leave the impression that they are actually doing something fiscally responsible here.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I will point out that the gentleman's amendment does not actually stop the printing of the pictorial directory. It simply stops the delivery of the directory to Members' offices. So it does not provide the savings that the gentleman is talking about. It provides between $9,000 and $29,000 because the only cost that he is saving is on the delivery and not on the printing.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by pointing out that the offerer of the amendment, and the chairman, are suggesting that now we should print things that we don't use. If that isn't an example of a waste of taxpayer dollars in suggesting that we should print this document but not make sure that it is delivered to Members' offices for their utilization, that pretty much sounds like government waste under the classic definition.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
It takes a meat-ax approach to cutting this bill by over $29 million with an across-the-board cut of 1 percent. I want to point out that it also exempts the Capitol Police and its buildings, as well as the Sergeant at Arms.
If the gentlewoman, who I know offers these amendments over and over again, were truly committed to an across-the-board cut, then she would just simply offer an across-the-board cut.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. To close, Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that what would be fiscally responsible and responsible in general is to not further take a meat ax to a bill that has already been flat-funded for the last 3 years. Our employees deserve a raise. We deserve to be able to be a coequal branch of government, funded well enough to be able to hold the administration accountable and make sure we can do our jobs. This bill does not allow us to achieve that.
I urge the Members to oppose this irresponsible amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source