Ander Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren).

Mr. CRENSHAW. If the gentleman will further yield, I just want to say I think that's a very good amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that we don't use any appropriated funds to buy polystyrene containers. I just want to make that point that we don't use any appropriated money to do that. I want to recognize a valued member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the former ranking member of the Legislative Branch.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Everything the gentleman said is true except for the fact that what we are doing in this bill is actually shutting down the Open World program. When you do that, there are some costs involved in the final shutdown, and that's why last year this was funded at $10 million. To shut down the program, we basically took away $9 million, left $1 million there to terminate the existing contracts that we have. There's some final compensation that has to be paid. They have to close some offices. There are potential unemployment claims. And so the point of this bill is to do exactly as the gentleman suggests, and that is to shut down this program which probably at one time was a very worthwhile program and was, I guess, a program that you could afford. But in today's world, this is a program that, under this legislative subcommittee, doesn't seem to be the right place to find funding. There were attempts in the past to fund it under the State- Foreign Operations Subcommittee. But bottom line, the goal of this committee is to shut down this program because we can't afford it anymore. Even if you pass this amendment, it still costs a million dollars to shut down the program. The Congressional Budget Office scores it as a million dollars. So I would say we ought not to pass this amendment. We ought to continue the process that has been started to shut down this program, and these dollars will be used to do just that. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Honda.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Reclaiming my time, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Lungren, the chairman of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. How many copies will the Appropriations Committee get under your amendment?

Mr. CRENSHAW. I want to say thank you to the gentleman for bringing this to the attention of the House and just from an informational standpoint make Members aware that in February this House passed what we call the Printing Resolution, which calls for the printing of the pocket Constitutions that he's talking about. The other body now has that piece of legislation. Like a lot of other pieces of legislation that that body finds itself in possession of, nothing has happened. So I think it's appropriate for some of us to encourage the other body to take up the Printing Resolution, solve the problem. And, actually, I was told just this morning that I think the point of your amendment has actually had an impact because the other body, I am told, has indicated that they plan to move ahead with the Printing Resolution that we sent them earlier this year. So I think all in all, that's been positive.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. One of the reasons we have committee structure is so that the members of the subcommittee that I chair--and Mr. Honda is the ranking member. As I said earlier, we sit down. We listen to the AGG heads and the Architect of the Capitol, which is in charge of the budget for the Botanic Garden. They make difficult choices. They come to us, and we make difficult choices. As I've said, we have reduced spending in the Legislative Branch Subcommittee for 3 years in a row. We are now at a point where it is almost 9 percent less than it was 3 years ago. So if you just decide you want to stand up and cut another 10 percent of this budget and then say you really like the Botanic Garden, it seems to me that this is a function of the Architect of the Capitol. It costs $12 million a year to have the Botanic Garden. A million people a year come to visit it and enjoy the beauty. If you're just going to stand up and say, Let's just cut 10 percent across the board, let's just start with the Botanic Garden, I don't know why you don't just cut 10 percent from the Capitol Police and 10 percent from some other areas. It just seems to be shortsighted. We've gone through this process already. The Architect of the Capitol has said, I'm not going to ask for additional money to do some of the repairs I need to do. There's a need for a new roof and there's a need for some other things. They said, We're not going to ask for that because we're operating under the philosophy that we all believe here, that we ought to do more with less; we ought to try to do the best we can. So here we are. I would just say that they're doing a good job. They're trying to control their costs. If we cut them any further, you really cripple them. You'll say to them that they can't have as many staff members, they'll have to close the Botanic Garden certain parts of the year. I think they've done a good job of managing their money. They have not asked for more dollars. With that, I would urge Members to defeat this amendment, and I yield 2 minutes of my time in opposition to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRENSHAW. Thank you for yielding. I just want to thank you for bringing this to our attention. I think it's well-intentioned. I think it's a good idea. I'm just curious as to how you decided to have 50 copies instead of 213.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, Members of the House, if the gentleman has a problem with communicating with constituents, then I think he ought to take his gripes to the Franking Commission. I think everyone knows in this House that Members have an office account, and the philosophy is that you have an office account, you run your office. You are held accountable for how you spend those dollars. Some dollars are spent for salaries, for equipment, for rent, and for communications. When the communications are paid for with taxpayers' dollars, they are subject to review by what's called the Franking Commission. That is a bipartisan commission, made up of Democrats, made up of Republicans. And before any kind of communication is put forward--whether it's a newsletter, maybe it is a postcard--before anything goes out, there are very strict guidelines that the Franking Commission uses to decide what goes in to those communication pieces. Under the rules, Members are allowed to use their MRA, their office account, that's funded by taxpayers dollars. They can, if they want to announce they're going to have a town hall meeting, they can send out a postcard, they can send out a letter. They can actually buy advertising in a newspaper, as long as it meets the requirements of the Franking Commission. And they are very strict about how big your name can be and how many pictures you can have. You can also buy time, buy advertising on the radio. If you want to say, ``I'm going to have a meeting, and we're going to decide whether or not to appoint people to the military academies,'' you can do that. You can also use the Internet for that. Quite frankly, in today's world, that's how most people get their information. I'm not a tech guy, but I understand that social media is how a lot of young people and old people, as well, communicate. If you want to communicate through the Internet, then you should have the same rules and regulations that apply to the print. You have to go to the Franking Commission, and they approve it. Again, Democrats and Republicans, they're making sure that these are official notices. They can direct you to your own Web site. Most Members have Web sites, and they can announce things on there. So it seems strange to me to single out this new social media, which is where the world seems to be going. That's how people get their information. It's a lot cheaper to communicate on the Internet than it is to mail a letter or to mail a post card. It seems to me this is just an effort to micromanage how the Members use their MRAs, and you single out the one area in which the world seems to be going. So it's like a step backwards to say that you can communicate, that you can buy advertising on the radio, that you can buy an ad in a newspaper as long as you comply with these franking rules but that you can't do it with the Internet. It just seems like a strange way to go. Once again, all of this is subject to review by the Franking Commission, made up of Democrats and Republicans, in order to make sure that all of that is appropriate. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.