Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, thank you for the recognition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4487, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, provides $3.3 billion for the operations of the legislative branch, excluding Senate items. The recommendation is the equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 level and a decrease of $122.5 million, or 3.7 percent, from the requested level.

Conforming with the longstanding practice under which each body of Congress determines its own housekeeping requirements and the other concurs without intervention, funds for the Senate are not included in the bill as reported by the committee.

Through seven hearings and meetings with agency heads, the committee listened to all who presented their respective concerns and budget requests. It was necessary to make some critical decisions and prioritize programs, and we did this in a bipartisan and transparent manner.

We are presenting to the House today a bill that is fiscally responsible and maintains current operations for the Legislative Branch agencies.

The bill includes $1.2 billion for the operations of the House. This is equivalent to the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $20 million below the request. It is worthy to note that the funding provided for Member's Representational Allowances and Committees provides for the current operations, and I do not anticipate further reductions in the coming year. The bill also includes the Members' pay freeze for fiscal year 2015.

With this bill, total funding for the House of Representatives is 14 percent below fiscal year 2010.

The bill includes $348 million for the Capitol Police. This is $9.5 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $77 million less than the requested level. This will support 1,775 sworn officers and 370 civilian positions. A slight increase above last year is provided to ensure the Capitol Police maintain current operations and ensure mission-essential training.

Knowing that access to the House office buildings is of critical concern to Members, we directed that the Chief of Police develop an action plan that will make sure public access to our buildings is easily accessible during heightened periods of visitation. The implementation of this plan is in the early stages, and we will continue to monitor the budgetary impacts to the Capitol Police.

The bill includes $45.7 million for the Congressional Budget Office. This is at the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $378,000 below the requested level.

The bill includes $488.6 million for the Architect of the Capitol, excluding Senate items. This is a decrease of $40.5 million from the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $79 million below the requested level.

Within the recommended level, the committee continues its prioritization of projects that promote the safety and public health of workers and occupants, decrease the deferred maintenance backlog, and invest to achieve future energy savings.

The committee recognizes the continuing challenge of preserving and maintaining our infrastructure and prioritizing critical projects in the current budgetary environment. It is important to note that $21 million is recommended for the final phase of dome restoration, a very high priority of this committee.

In addition, we are continuing the 5-year practice of including funds for the House Historic Buildings Revitalization Trust Fund, a fund established by Ms. Wasserman Schultz when she was chair of this subcommittee in anticipation of the renovation of the historic Cannon House Office Building.

Might I say, it is one of the really tremendous contributions that my friend and colleague has made, and I hope it stays inside of our operating procedure for many years to come. It was a wise decision.

Also included is $16 million for the lease cost of a portion of the Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Office Building in preparation of the Cannon renewal project.

The bill includes $595 million for the operations of the Library of Congress. This is an increase of $16 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $1.9 million above the requested level. The amount will allow the Library to continue at current operations.

Established by Congress in 1800, the Library of Congress is one of the largest libraries in the world, with a collection of more than 130 million print, audio, and video items in 460 languages. It is imperative adequate funding is provided to maintain acquisitions, preservation, the administration of U.S. copyright laws by the U.S. Copyright Office for research and analysis of policy issues for the Congress by the Congressional Research Service, and the administration of a national program to provide reading material to the blind and physically handicapped.

The bill before you accomplishes all of that.

It is important to note $5.5 million of the funding is provided for the Deacidification Program, which is $1 million over the Library's request. And $8.2 million is for the Teaching with Primary Sources Program, at $1 million over the request, to be used for competitive opportunities for developing online interactive and apps for classroom use on Congress and civic participation.

It is $1.2 million above the request for the Copyright Office to reduce the claims and processing time for copyright registrations and to conduct business analyses for the process engineering of the documentation recordation function.

The bill includes $122.6 million for the Government Printing Office. This is an increase of $3.3 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $6.3 million below the requested level. Funds have been included for continuation of development and infrastructure costs associated with the Federal digital system and the system replacement for upgrading the extensible markup language.

The bill includes $519.6 million for the Government Accountability Office. This is an increase of $14.2 million above the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $5.5 million below the requested level. Language is included to establish a Center for Audit Excellence to build global institutional auditing capacity and promote good governance. This center is to be operated on a fee-based basis.

Finally, the bill includes $3.42 million for the Open World Leadership Trust Fund. This is $2.58 million below the fiscal year 2014 enacted level and $4.58 million below the requested level.

As a sign of support for Ukraine, the committee has reduced the program by 43 percent. This represents the program's percentage of participants from Russia. It is important to stress that Open World's program does not just focus on work with Russia. Ukraine has the next largest group of participants, closely followed by other nations in the surrounding region. Therefore, we encourage the center to do more in Ukraine and with other participating countries in the surrounding region.

I would like to thank my good friend, the ranking member, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for her role throughout the process. We have worked well together in a bipartisan manner. It has truly been a team effort.

Also, I extend my appreciation to all members of the subcommittee in their efforts in helping bring this measure to the floor. I also want to thank the truly excellent staff that has nursed me through this.

Let me just add, parenthetically, that we had a pretty unusual situation in that, because of some early retirements and the loss of our dear friend, Bill Young, we had a lot of reshuffling to do on our committee. On our side, that meant we only had one carryover member, and that was the vice chairman, Mr. Harris from Maryland, who was indispensable and extraordinarily helpful to the rest of us.

Again, without a capable staff and without, frankly, a wonderful working partner in my ranking member, we would have had a much more difficult time. Frankly, I don't think anybody in this institution knows this bill and this process better than Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She has been my friend. I was once on her committee as a very junior member when she chaired it, and I learned a lot from her then. I learned a lot more from her this time.

I look forward to the debate, and with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

My friend and I have had a number of opportunities to talk about this issue. We talked about it in committee, we talked about it yesterday in discussion on the rule, and we are talking about it today because I think he wants to make his point, and I think he is using every opportunity to make his point.

Quite frankly, it is a point that needs to be made and a point that deserves to be heard. One of the things I will miss about my friend a lot is his tenacity when he has got something that he thinks is important and his willingness to go through a little heat and a little criticism, which I know he has received over this, to make that point. That is a very valuable characteristic in any Member.

I don't think we are in immediate danger, the kind of future and the kind of House that my friend describes, but I do think, if we were to continue this course indefinitely, we would be.

Now, again, as I mentioned yesterday in our exchange, remember, a lot of people who come here for a short time aren't coming here to cash out on anything. They are coming here because they believe in the limited time of public service, and quite often, that is a pretty popular point of view in their districts. So I cast no aspersions on somebody that comes for 6 or 8 years, and that is their choice.

In my State, that is exactly what Senator Tom Coburn did in this body for 6 years and what he has done in the United States Senate. I know that is a sincere opinion as to what he thinks the appropriate thing is, and quite frankly, he has certainly never cast himself out and hung around Washington, D.C. I think that is true of many, many Members.

As my friend makes a good point about the character of the body and where we may be headed if we do the wrong things over time, I also think we are in a really critical point in our country where we are having to make a lot of difficult decisions.

We have made a lot of difficult decisions on this committee, made a lot of cuts that we didn't want to make because we thought the budget deficit was too high, and we needed to ask people to make some painful reductions.

I think if you are going to ask people to make painful reductions you have got to lead by example, and I think that is actually what both sides have tried to do.

Again, I know when my friends were in the majority, we didn't always get cost of living increases and those sorts of things either. They had inherited a difficult situation. They were making tough choices, and they were trying to lead by example.

I think that is exactly what this majority has continued to do, and so maintaining your personal credibility and your institutional responsibility, while you are arriving at and administering difficult decisions, I think, is a very important characteristic. So that is what we have tried to do in this bill.

Again, I appreciate my friend for making his point because I think, over time, we could change the character of the institution if we are not careful. I don't think that is an immediate concern, but it is one we ought to reflect on as we move forward.

Again, I thank him for his service, and I thank him for his persistence and tenacity.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

I was tempted to actually yield my friend from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) additional time, he was being so kind to all of us on both sides of the aisle. But I genuinely want to thank my friend who is a very valuable member of our committee and, again, someone who is always thoughtful, always helpful, and always works in a bipartisan manner. You saw it on this floor yesterday when he and Chairman Culberson delivered their bill in a very bipartisan and a very professional manner. He does the same thing on our committee. So I just wanted to thank my friend.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Chair, at this time, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I just wanted to once again thank my friend, my working partner in this, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. She, in this area, is an absolute expert without peer in this House, which has been enormously helpful to me.

Again, I want to thank the members of the committee. I want to thank all of the staff, frankly, from both sides of the aisle, all of the personnel offices. They have just been absolutely first-rate.

As I observed, I think, in one of our committee meetings, if the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee and the former chief of staff of the Republican National Committee can work this well together, then surely all things are possible in this universe.

It has been a pleasure to work with my friend. I look forward to continuing that collaboration as we go forward.

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. COLE. I want to begin by thanking my friend. We serve together on the Rules Committee. It is very seldom that I would disagree with my friend, who not only has a distinguished record here, but a distinguished record in law enforcement.

And let me make it clear. I am quite content to let the body work its will on this matter. I appreciate my friend actually bringing it forward. I think it is important to discuss.

I had not really thought about this a great deal until I saw my friend's amendment. I don't lease a vehicle through my office at all. Although we have discussed it and looked at it, it just never seemed to be appropriate or make sense for us. We do have 63 Members, however, who do do this practice. The average cost of the vehicle is $589.

Now, I can't tell you that I have taken a survey of all 63, but I have talked to a few--just sort of tell me what your reasoning is--and the responses are pretty diverse. But you could break it into two or three categories.

First, some of them cover exceptionally large districts, and they find this the most cost-effective way to actually cover it, I mean, even to the point of saying, as one Member said:

I go through rough terrain to reach remote areas. I need a vehicle that, frankly, is quite a bit more robust than members of my staff have or that I even have personally, sometimes, to reach some of my constituents.

I thought that was a pretty impressive reason.

Second, others, again, just find it much more cost-effective than actually paying and reimbursing for mileage. But I think the core thing here is to trust--actually trust--the Member to make the decision.

I think an important point here is to note that we are not going to save any money, really. This comes out of the Member's Representational Allowance as it is, so there is not a real savings here. And it is all publicly disclosed, so Members take some considerable risk if they do this. They have to be able to explain it to their constituents.

At the end of the day, I just simply don't want to micromanage individual Members in how they spend the money which we allot them through this bill.

And with that, I understand my good friend would like to say some things, so I will yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the ranking member.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. I thank my friend for yielding.

Madam Chairman, I just want to thank my friend from California for bringing this amendment. I think it is a truly important amendment and something that we are more than happy to accept, and appreciate her raising the issue very, very much.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding. I want to thank my friend too because I know the spirit in which this is brought is to save money and to make some tough decisions, and I share that. It is worth pointing out that we did reduce the Architect's request by $79 million.

Frankly, we are spending about $40 million less than we did last year, so it is not as if we have not been serious about this. We did look at this particular area. My friend from Florida made the point that not only is it a well-traveled destination point and very desirable place, but it is a pretty old building, and we really do have serious problems here that we think are potentially health hazards.

We have chunks of the building, 5-15 pounds, that have fallen off from the height of 40 feet, and that is a health hazard; so given the traffic there, given the fact that we have been pretty tough across the board, we thought this was one of those urgent priorities that needed to be taken care of.

Again, I have no qualms with my friend's motives. I know he is trying to save money. I share that belief. We have made a lot of tough decisions across the board, and it is certainly appropriate for this body to look, and if people can find areas, we are happy with that.

In this case, our judgment as a committee--and certainly my judgment--is that we need to make certain that a facility that is this well used is kept safe and in good repair, so we don't risk liability and risk injury and, frankly, that we do keep open and functioning one of the most beloved institutions of the Capitol complex.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, first, I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to thank my friend too because I know he is very serious about looking for places to cut costs. Indeed, later on, there are a number of items that Members have brought to our attention that we will accept. In this case, we don't think it is appropriate.

I do want to thank my friend from Florida. I happened to be on this committee as a junior Member when she did do, I think, an unbelievably good job in working us through what had been a bad process and cost overruns in the Center.

At the end of the day, this is where millions of Americans--this is their portal to the Capitol. It is well run, and it is well managed. I think maintaining access and keeping it safe and keeping it welcoming, if you will, is very important.

So while this is a legitimate question to raise, I agree with my friend and would oppose the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend. Again, I appreciate the spirit in which he approaches this. This is an interesting point of discussion because we actually have Members of both parties who really like this program and think it is very important, and we have Members of both parties that share your point of view. It is not a partisan debate in the least.

I would say that there are a number of both contemporary points and a number of longer-term points that ought to be taken into account.

First, this was originally a $6 million item. We have cut it by 43 percent aimed at Russia. All the other participants in this program are the very countries that Russia threatens right now; particularly Ukraine, which is the second largest participant. I think it would be a really bad signal for this country to actually cut programs that are supportive of democracy in the areas immediately around Russia and, frankly, I think more or less plays into Mr. Putin's hand.

Beyond that, we have a unique institution, a unique arrangement, and a unique person heading it at the Library of Congress, Mr. Billington, who is probably the world's most expert on Russian history, culture, and literature. This has been well placed, as long as he has been the librarian, and well used.
So, again, I appreciate my friend's motives, but I would urge the rejection of his amendment.

With that, I would like to yield the remainder of the time that I have to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), my good friend.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to accept this amendment.

You certainly aren't behind the times. You are usually ahead of the curve.

In this case, the gentleman certainly is. I appreciate him pointing out an area where we can save $300,000. He is precisely right on this. We are more than happy to accept the amendment and, again, very much appreciate our friend for bringing it to the floor and for saving the American taxpayers $300,000.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank my friend for bringing this to the floor. He is precisely right in everything that he says about both the costs and the functionality of the document in question.

His staff member is to be commended for bringing it to his attention and for you acknowledging her. I think staff people every place are grateful. We are delighted to accept this amendment, delighted to save the money, and, again, appreciate our friend bringing it to our attention, pointing it out, and saving the taxpayers $200,000.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. COLE. Madam Chairman, my friend is, frankly, one of the most thoughtful and best Members of this body. There is no question about that. So, when we discussed this, I took it very seriously because it was my friend's proposal, and I think any other Member in this House would do the same. At the end of the day, I came to a different conclusion for a number of reasons.

First, we are in a very tight budget. We have no increase at all, so funding this initiative means effectively taking money away from someplace else. Second, I looked at the long-term spending pattern of this program in the past. It actually peaked at $20 million, so I think starting at $2.5 million is not likely where it will end up over time. Third, quite frankly, I looked at what some of my predecessors in my position had thought, both Republican and Democratic. As my friend knows, obviously, the Democrats had the majority after 1995 for a 4-year period, which was relatively recently, and they looked at this and came to the same decision that was made in '95, and that, I think, we make today, which is that there are other sources of information. The Government Accountability Office, in particular, has developed a capability here, and we think there are other sources of information.

While I don't deny that this has played a useful role in the past, I just believe, given the constrained circumstances that we have today, given the possibility that this will grow, and given what at least to date has been a bipartisan judgment that this is something we didn't need to renew, I, reluctantly, decided not to include this in the bill. For that reason, I would also oppose the amendment.

I now yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), my good friend, the ranking member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Again, I want to thank my friend because I know he is, indeed, committed to this idea.

In closing, Madam Chair, I think, as usual, my friend Ms. Wasserman Schultz probably made the salient point of the debate. We are taking from our historic trust fund, which preserves this building, and redirects that resource. That is a mistake. That is just simply a mistake. If there is another way to fund it, I would still have grave reservations about reintroducing it because I do think the information is available elsewhere, but robbing from your seed corn, I think, is something we shouldn't do.

We have established this fund. We have been able to maintain it under Democrats and Republicans alike. We are going to have these challenges going forward. I do not want to set the precedent of this becoming a piggy bank to fund other things out of. We need to maintain our campus. This is an important way to do it, and I think weakening it in any way would be counterproductive.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, after spending the last few hours debating and amending this bill, we have before us a bipartisan piece of legislation that funds this House, its safety, and the agencies that support the legislative process, and all in a fiscally responsible and, frankly, bipartisan way.

Yesterday, in nearly a unanimous fashion, this House passed a bill that provided nearly $4 billion in funding that directly supports and assists our wounded warriors, and I think most all of us on both sides of the aisle are proud of that.

This includes $2.6 billion for the Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service, $560 million for the largest system of spinal cord injury of care in the United States, and $135 million to assist blind and visually impaired veterans. It also includes $96 million for research that benefits wounded warriors in areas like prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injuries, and the like.

The total medical care budget of the VA for FY15 is $59.1 billion, enough to care for 6.7 million patients and, again, is something that I think every Member in this House ought to be proud of and was more than delighted to support.

This legislation, as with all appropriations legislation that we bring to the floor, makes every stride to ensure that the very best care for our wounded warriors and veterans is available. I know that I speak for this entire body when I say we deeply respect and respect the service and sacrifices of our troops and veterans and that the bill we passed yesterday is hard-and-fast proof of that.

Frankly, had we wanted to do more, I would suggest that yesterday would have been the time to do more because, clearly, everybody was willing to support that measure.

Keep in mind, the bill before us now is the smallest of the 12 appropriations bills, but it is still incredibly important; and advancing this bill gets us one step closer to completing our necessary work, our constitutional duty of funding the Federal Government.

Motions to recommit like this one, quite frankly, are mostly political ``gotcha'' tactics, and both sides do it. I cast no partisan stones here. I have seen it happen on this floor many, many times before. But I think both sides probably ought to stop and reflect if we are really honoring the veterans or if we are using them to make a political point. I would hope not the latter, because yesterday we did the right thing; today we are trying to score points at one another's expense.

Yes, both sides have done this. I am sorry it happens. My personal opinion is that it shouldn't, and I hope we will dispense with it going forward.

The bill in front of us has bipartisan support. If

it is allowed to proceed, it will pass overwhelmingly.

Over the past 2 days, we have done some great work, kicking off the appropriations process at the earliest date in decades and passing our first bill yesterday with overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle. Let's continue that good work today. Let's pass this bill. Let's reject the motion to recommit. Let's get the work of the people done.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source