Mike Honda

Mr. HONDA

Mr. HONDA. I yield the gentleman 2 additional minutes.

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

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

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) and offer the amendment at the desk.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am introducing on behalf of my colleague, Sanford Bishop, would increase the Capitol Police by a modest $1 million for the district office security for Members. After the shooting of our colleague, Ms. Giffords, the Sergeant-At- Arms and the Capitol Police provided Members with access to security reviews. These reviews and guidelines by the Sergeant-At-Arms provided Members with a litany of equipment and capital improvements that are needed to improve district office security. Even though the recommendations came from our security agencies, Members were left to fund these upgrades through their office budget. When Members' offices are being cut by more than 10 percent in a year, I'm afraid the strain to continue constituent services will impede any Member's ability to pay for these upgrades. I'm hoping this amendment will be a small step in providing a centralized pot of funds so these upgrades do not go ignored. The offset is from a lower priority House account that funds transition costs in 2012. It is not a transition year.

Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. HONDA. I thank the gentleman. I really understand that the gentleman from North Carolina is highlighting serious concerns with processes that he sees with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and I share some of his concerns. As well, I share some of the concerns that the gentleman from Massachusetts has. It is really raising the question of trying to improve the ethics process in our House and improving the underlying authorization that may be more appropriate, and seeking more appropriate first steps. I think this may be a situation where we may not be able to support the gentleman's amendment, but at the same time support the issue of improving what it is that he is seeking. I think that the gentleman from Massachusetts would probably be willing to work on that, and I think my friends on the other side would be willing, too. Reluctantly, while I am not personally in opposition, I think for this portion of the process, I am in opposition.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent, or over $1 million. The funding included in the bill for the JEC is already less than the funding level provided to the JEC in fiscal year 2008. The Joint Economic Committee is a bicameral congressional committee composed of 10 Members from each, the Senate and the House of Representatives. There are 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. The gentleman does not have an amendment to go after the House Committee, but instead has chosen to go after funding for this joint committee. I hope this isn't an effort to strike funding because this committee is jointly managed with the Senate. The last thing that this Congress needs is less collaboration between the two bodies. We need to continue collaboration. The main purpose of the JEC is to make a continuing study of matters related to the U.S. economy, and this is exactly the type of analysis Members from both parties and both bodies need as we try to analyze complex economic issues as a Nation. I oppose this amendment, and I ask my colleagues to do so the same. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. HONDA. I claim time in opposition to this amendment. THE CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. HONDA. The amendment would cut the Office of Compliance by $467,000, even though the office is cut in the underlying bill by 6.4 percent--the same as the overall bill reduction. I have to question the motives of cutting the Office of Compliance disproportionately to the overall bill. Maybe the gentleman is not aware, but this office was established in 1995 by the Republican Congress to satisfy the Republican Contract with America. The office implements the Congressional Accountability Act to ensure that Congress complies with safety, discrimination, and accessibility laws that everyone else in the Nation must follow. This amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements to provide our workers with a fair and safe working environment. Therefore, I oppose this amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. HONDA. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. HONDA. I just want to disclose the same comments I did in the last paragraph, that this amendment suggests that Congress should ease up on requirements providing our workers with a fair and safe working environment. I don't think we should back off on that. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. I believe that there are other amendments forthcoming. I'm just very concerned about it, and I agree with the chairman in making this funding necessary. I know the Botanic Garden. I enjoy it. And I think that the funding that he has provided is sufficient to push forward the maintenance so that we do not incur a greater maintenance problem in the future. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HONDA. While I'm not necessarily opposed to the amendment, I think the record should be clear on the funding level in the bill. To suggest that the $600,000 increase in the Botanic Garden is somehow not needed is simply not true. The funding will be used for painting, electrical upgrades, elevator maintenance, evaporative cooling system upgrades, and the replacement for the vent system used in the plant greenhouse. I applaud the chairman for funding this necessary maintenance work so we do not have more expensive deferred maintenance in the future. This bill does not fund millions in the maintenance needed by the Architect to sustain and improve our aging national iconic buildings, including the Capitol. However, the chairman found a small amount of funding to try and keep up with the maintenance at the Botanic Garden, and the Members attack because they can get a good headline in the paper. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. The chairman of the subcommittee should be applauded for adequately funding the operations and necessary maintenance work so we do not have a more expensive deferred maintenance in the future, which usually is the result. Now, about cutting and about plants. I think I know a little bit about plants and trees and people behind trees. There is someone behind the tree, and sometimes it's a gardener that doesn't know how to prune it to its proper shape so that it will express itself properly. The Botanic Garden, let's face it, is a national treasure. It is something that people come to to enjoy. It's a heritage that our forefathers left behind that we should be able to maintain now and for the future. It's a place of respite and contemplation, and God knows that we all need that sometimes.

Mr. HONDA. I thank the chairman for yielding. My daddy used to say that you should really be careful of zealots because they come in hacking and hewing. I think there are a couple of things that the chairman has pointed out that require some study and thought. The gentleman who's wanting to do the cutting, he indicated there was a book that was talking about deficits, but that book has been paid by CBO, so it is not a cost of GPO. And then in terms of security, GPO has the security, but they're required to issue passports, and with passports you have to have security there. So I think a more studied approach would probably be in place. Cuts for cuts' sake, I think, is, in the words of my father, foolhardy. I would recommend that we slow down and make haste with all deliberate speed, and I agree with my chairman here.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to the amendment, but I figured that I could spend a little time now, since I didn't take it on the last one. As a Member who represents Silicon Valley, I am supportive of most any effort to move us towards becoming a more paperless Congress. This amendment is easy to support because the Government Printing Office has already taken steps that reduce printed copies of the Congressional Record. GPO has surveyed the House and Senate for their continuing to print copies of the Record, along with other print documents, like the Federal Register, the first survey of its kind. And for those offices like my own that told GPO that we want to opt out of having the Record delivered to our offices, GPO stopped those deliveries. I think the gentleman would also be interested in knowing that 68 percent of the costs of producing the Congressional Record is incurred whether copies are printed or not. These are the pre-press costs that are used to create the electronic file which they upload for online and also print. So while I'm not opposed to reviewing how Congress does its work, including its documents requirement, I believe Members should spend some time getting to know the agency before acting upon it. I think that this move towards a more paperless Congress will start here. It needs to start here with our own practices, and I believe the GPO will accommodate. Again, I support this amendment, as it reinforces steps already taken by our partners at GPO, and I thank our colleague for presenting this.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us would prohibit the purchase, acquisition, installation, or use of any medium compact fluorescent lightbulbs. This amendment seeks to rehash the debate on lightbulb efficiency standards we had during the consideration of H.R. 2417, the BULB Act, which failed when it was brought to a vote earlier this month. The impact of this amendment on this bill goes beyond a policy argument on whether or not you support these types of energy-saving bulbs. This amendment would prevent Members and staff from literally turning on the lights. If offices have these bulbs, which most do, they would be prohibited from using them. One reason that folks support doing away with energy-efficient lightbulbs is because they consider them to be a potential mercury danger. There has been no proof that these lightbulbs expose people to unhealthy levels of mercury. This scare tactic is trying to impose fear and is a result of an overblown media report that exaggerated the potential danger. These bulbs are safe. They're already installed and are used in the House, and they save taxpayers money. And, oh, by the way, I believe every thermostat we have in our House has quite a bit of mercury in there. So with that, I urge defeat of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, I find it interesting that the example of the EPA indicating that this mercury would be a danger and so, off the subject then, when we talk about EPA standards and sustaining EPA, I hope that we can be on the same side on that one. I continue to reserve my time in order to close the debate.

Mr. HONDA. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the utilization of what you call the curlicue and the other light bulb, I guess the question would remain, in terms of efficiency and sustainability, how long of a lifetime does what you call the curlicue light bulb have versus the other one? It seems to me that when I'm a shopper and I look at prices and I look at the number of hours that it's going to be up there, the number of hours that the newer bulbs have exceed anything that I've seen before.

Mr. HONDA. Yes, but let me finish here. I just wanted to make sure that we don't confuse what we call efficiency with sustainability. I think the sustainability is also a piece that we should be looking at. The production of it, I think, is important, and I don't fight you on the point that we should make more stuff here. We should, and we will. I think that there are more products in Lowe's and Orchard Supply and places like that that exhibit that we are making more of that here. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.