Floor Speeches

I rise in opposition to the rule; again, a rule that is not an open rule that allows for different amendments to be brought forth under this rule, as we have done with other appropriations bills. I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, when Americans think of Congress, they likely picture our beautiful Capitol Building, its iron dome, the rotunda filled with so many tourists each day, and so many sites on the National Mall and around the Capitol complex. But that is really just the physical infrastructure that we all live in and around. What really makes Congress function, or fail to function, are its people, its human capital, the staff that we have on the Hill that help keep Members informed and able to effectively operate in an increasingly complex world.

The bill before us risks squandering Congress' human capital. The bill cuts the legislative branch by 6.4 percent below 2011 and 9 percent below 2010 funding levels. What that means is the hardworking and underpaid and overworked men and women who staff our offices and our committees, giving long hours--frequently giving up their weekends. They'll be working through next weekend, Mr. Speaker. And I think there are very few jobs where they are actually thrilled to be informed that they actually have the weekend off. I know that not only myself but my staff rejoiced in leadership's decision to allow us not to work this weekend. I think that is a bar that most people assume they won't be working on weekends. Well, we assume in many cases we are, and we are actually very happy when we only have a 5-day workweek. That's the type of dedication that brings people into this line of work.

This cut will result in layoffs and pay cuts for members of the staff. And I would like to point out, it doesn't ask anything of the highest paid people here, the Members of Congress. We make $174,000 a year. I am a cosponsor of a bill to reduce that by 5 percent. But here we are, cutting salaries for people making $30,000 and $40,000 a year without cutting the salaries of any of us who make $174,000 a year. Again, I think that's just wrong. I think it's consistent with the Republican agenda of preserving tax cuts for people making over $250,000 a year and making hardworking middle class families earning $80,000, $100,000 a year dig deeper and pay more by cutting student loans and programs that they benefit from.

So it shouldn't come as any surprise that that Legislative Branch appropriations bill is consistent with that in that it asks great sacrifices and at a time that we all agree our country has to cut back. But it asks great sacrifices of those making $30,000, $40,000 a year and takes nothing away and demands nothing of those who are earning $174,000 a year, namely, the Members of Congress themselves.

Another concern about this bill is, instead of strengthening security in the wake of violence against Members, including the events in Tucson several months ago, instead of investing in inspectors, they've slashed, under this proposal, every operation under the legislative branch except for Capitol Police, but including the Sergeant at Arms Office. Again, this represents a potential physical threat to Members at a time when, unfortunately, our national discourse has become more divisive than ever.

This bill also cuts the Library of Congress by 8.5 percent. I want to explain, Mr. Speaker, what the Library of Congress does and how we, as Members of Congress, rely on them. They are our objective research service. My staff and I, along with other Members of this body, rely on the Congressional Research Service. We get experts on issues on the phone, bring them to our offices to gain their expertise on complicated appropriations, budget issues, the peace process in the Middle East. This information is a vital part of producing sound legislation.

They are our only objective source of information. By reducing their ability to supply Members of Congress and our staff with quality information, we only empower the lobbyists and the other exclusive purveyors of information in this town who will give less objective information than Members of Congress and their staffs will have to increasingly rely on, rather than the Congressional Research Service.

The Government Accountability Office is cut by 6.4 percent. I want to point out that the GAO saves money. Again, every $1 we spend at the GAO results in $4 of savings. This is an office charged with finding savings and excess on duplicative expenditures. So by cutting their ability to do that, we actually increase wasteful spending elsewhere in the budget. It's the congressional watchdog. Taking away funding from the GAO means taking away methods on how we can alert policymakers to emerging wasteful spending and wasteful  programs throughout government.

GAO is proven to protect taxpayer dollars. It was GAO that warned Congress about problems in the savings and loan industry. It was GAO that warned Congress about the dangers of deficit spending. If there's a looming issue that's not getting public attention but threatens public dollars, the GAO needs to be there to do thoughtful research and help Congress understand these issues.

I am also very concerned with the cuts to the Congressional Budget Office, the 6 percent cut. The Congressional Budget Office is critical to reducing our deficit. To cut Congressional Budget Office spending now, at a time when we are coming up with trillion-dollar plans to reduce our deficit, would prove that the majority does not value proper accounting or prompt consideration of important policy proposals. We want to make sure that what we are passing has cost savings, reduces the deficit, and cuts spending, and the taxpayers are protected. We also want to make sure we pass legislation as expediently as possible. And if we're cutting off funding to the Congressional Budget Office and we expect layoffs, I'm not sure that we have the taxpayers' best interests at heart.

There were also amendments that were brought forth in the Rules Committee that, if we had an open amendment process, we would be able to include; but, unfortunately, they were not made in order under this particular rule, including a bipartisan amendment by Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Representative Schweikert. The amendment would have provided $100,000--not of new money but rededicated from another account to name one of our rooms in the Capitol Visitor Center the Gabriel Zimmerman Meeting Room.

Who is Gabriel Zimmerman? He is the first congressional staff person in this country's history to die in the line of duty. He was with Representative Giffords in the January 8 tragedy in Tucson, Arizona, that struck this country and shocked our Nation and really tore through the fabric of the congressional community. Representative Schweikert and Representative Wasserman Schultz came together to provide a fitting memorial for a member of our congressional family that died in the line of service. Gabe Zimmerman was a loyal, dedicated public servant; and he made the ultimate sacrifice to this country as the first congressional staff person murdered in the line of duty in the history of our country.

This distinction wouldn't have cost taxpayers any money and would have recognized not only the devoted service of Gabe but also of the thousands of other staff people on Capitol Hill and I think would have been appropriate, particularly at a time when every Member's office will be involved with pay cuts and layoffs as a result of the 6.5 percent cut, to show that beyond the dollars, the giving of your life and the dedication of the staff that help keep us well informed in making decisions in the best interests of the country is appreciated by the institution of Congress as a whole.

I therefore oppose the rule, as well as the underlying bill.