Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's motion to recommit because there are children out there who need to be saved. They are waiting to be saved. This motion provides additional funding for the Internet Crimes Against Children program, a national network of 61 coordinated law enforcement task forces investigating and prosecuting those who sexually exploit our most vulnerable constituents, our children. With the proliferation of the Internet and wireless technology, online child pornography has become an epidemic. And let's not forget that these are not just heinous images. They are crime scene photos. The ICAC needs resources to go after these criminals now. According to estimates, half of these arrests lead us to the door of a hands-on offender, and that is a child waiting to be rescued. Yet in one recent year, the ICAC only had the resources to investigate a mere 2 percent of all leads. Previous increases in Federal funding have directly resulted in thousands more arrests, contributing to many more thousands of children who are outright rescued or who will be spared contact with an abuser. Let's take this opportunity to help the ICAC rescue more children. Please, think about these precious babies being victimized. Let's rescue as many of them as possible. If you are a parent, God forbid it was your own child. I urge Members' support for the motion to recommit, and I thank the gentlewoman for her commitment to making sure that we can rescue America's victimized children.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.

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. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the minority whip.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. At this time, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining?

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. At this time, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield for a question?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time we have remaining?

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. I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

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?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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. I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by congratulating Chairman Graves on his maiden voyage as a chair of an appropriations subcommittee. I know that he was diligent and focused, and we found agreement where we could, and where we could not agree, I appreciate his willingness to discuss it in a congenial and thoughtful manner. Today, we consider the smallest of the appropriations bills; and, while that is the case, it is one that does fund an entire branch of our government. The bill provides, as the chairman mentioned, $3.3 billion to the legislative branch, without Senate items, and is equal to the amount provided in fiscal year 2015. Unfortunately, this represents the third year in a row of flat funding for the overall legislative branch. Certain agencies--the Architect of the Capitol and the Government Publishing Office--are cut below fiscal year 2015 to support increases in other agencies. I know if there was overall relief in the budget allocation, we would see more investment in the staff and facilities in the legislative branch, but we are starting to cut into bone in some places, and it is truly unwise. It is regrettable that this bill is, as are all of the other appropriations bills, bound by spending limits set by the Republican budget resolution that continues sequestration. The President put forward a plan that will avoid sequestration's harmful budget cuts and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. Unfortunately, the Republican budget does not at least meet the President's plan halfway. As we look to conference with the Senate later in the year on appropriations bills, I am hopeful that both parties and the President can come together for another reasonable bargain that gives us more room for discretionary programs. This bill is being considered under a structured rule, as is tradition. Twenty amendments were filed, seven of which were filed by Democratic Members. Regrettably, the Rules Committee only made three Republican amendments in order, all of which would further erode the Legislative Branch bill's funding. No Democratic amendments were made in order, even though several were aimed at improving the lives of our restaurant workers whose plight was played out in very public display in the last several weeks. Last night, in the Rules Committee, I asked the committee to attempt to find some parity, Mr. Chairman, between the majority and minority with regard to amendments made in order; instead of parity, the minority was completely shut out of the process. As a result of the allocation, several infrastructure projects with life and safety elements are not funded in this bill, even though we have been committed to funding those in past years. Cutting necessary upgrades to our elevators will not get us out of debt; what it will do is get people stuck in our elevators. We should not be surprised if an accident happens because we didn't address important life-safety projects. This bill, as I have said many times before, is not the sexiest of the 13 appropriations bills, but it is one that is incredibly important, and it is important that we keep the people who visit the Capitol and work in the Capitol safe, and this bill makes it less likely that we will be able to do that. There are not many new initiatives in the bill, given the allocation, but I am pleased that the bill recognized the importance of the Nation's copyright laws by providing some of the requested increase. The Copyright Office must improve the backlog of registrations, as well as their business processes. Currently, customers can only submit documents on paper, which the Copyright Office turns into a digital format, which is a glaring inefficiency. It is 2015, the 21st century. Our Copyright Office should not be conducting 21st century business in a 20th century format. The Copyright Office said it best itself in a report released in February of this year: There is a widespread perception that our licensing system is broken. Songwriters and recording artists are concerned that they cannot make a living under the existing structure, which raises serious and systemic concerns for the future. Music publishers and performance rights organizations are frustrated that so much of their licensing activity is subject to government control, so they are constrained in the marketplace. Record labels and digital services complain that the licensing process is burdensome and inefficient, making it difficult to innovate. I am glad to see that this bill is beginning to address necessary upgrades. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned with the cut to the Government Publishing Office in the underlying bill. This office was formerly known as the Government Printing Office. Congress changed the name in December to reflect what the agency actually does in this digital world. The office publishes information online and plays a vital role in Congress' transparency. Unfortunately, GPO's request to continue to improve its online site, as it has been allowed to do each year before this one, even under full sequestration, was denied in the bill. The cut to GPO's online site continues to raise the concern from some that GPO could ultimately decide to charge the public for access to legislative documents, as was recommended to them by the National Academy of Public Administration in 2013. I agree with Representatives Candice Miller and Bob Brady, the chair and ranking member of House Administration, who wrote to GPO, stating: ``Charging the public to access legislative data and documents would be a colossal setback to the progress Congress has made to improve transparency and access to legislative information.'' They also said charging the public ``would be a direct assault on our ability to engage Americans in a process that is of great consequence to their livelihoods.'' GPO indicated at the time of the Miller-Brady letter that it had no plans to charge users for what should be public information; but what choice are we leaving them if we don't continue investing in their online systems? Also included in the bill is a requirement that the Architect seek approval, as the chairman described, from the House Committee on Appropriations and the Government Accountability Office for any project or phase of a project over $5 million. I support strong oversight, as I have demonstrated many times over the last 8 years, but I do question whether or not the low threshold would unnecessarily hold up the progress of essential projects. We should require the assistance of GAO to review projects on the scale of the Cannon building restoration. I have asked GAO to come in and get involved very specifically in a number of things where accountability was a concern, but I question the use of GAO's resources on projects as small as $5 million. That begins to micromanage beyond what is reasonable. To end on a more positive note, I am pleased that we were able to provide $10 million to add to the House historic buildings revitalization trust fund. We have been banking funds for our large projects over the last several years, which is imperative to help ensure we avoid getting caught flatfooted if we experience unexpected costs in the future. As I conclude, I want to, again, thank Chairman Graves for an open dialogue as he crafted this bill. I did have a lot of opportunity to talk with him about the details of this bill and offer suggestions, many of which he took. Again, I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman as the bill moves to the Senate and then on to conference. I particularly want to thank our incredible staff, one of whom is sitting next to me, Shalanda Young, and the rest of our staff, Liz Dawson, Chuck Turner, on the majority side; and Jenny Panone, as well as Jason Murphy, with Chairman Graves' personal office; and Rosalyn Kumar, on my personal staff. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.