On the recordFebruary 16, 2011
Just a word against the amendment. The amendment really actually reduces the House of Representatives' budget by $1.5 million, which will bring the total reduction to $82 million from fiscal year 2010. The gentleman purports that this amendment cuts energy reduction programs when in actuality that is not what his amendment does. He makes a general cut that will affect office budgets and the services of the House. So I just want to be clear on this. It is a shortsighted strategy to handicap the legislative branch of government by reducing our own staffs here. We are an equal branch of government and must effectively serve our own constituents. Not only is the gentleman's amendment flawed, but the motive of his amendment is flawed. Energy reduction programs save the government and taxpayers money. For example, the House has installed nearly 13,000 energy saving compact fluorescent light bulbs, or CFLs, throughout the House complex, saving more than 1.1 million kilowatt hours annually. This project has already saved taxpayers up to now $446,000 and is projected to produce an annual savings of $178,000 annually into the future. So we are getting a return on our investments. Furthermore, consolidating Member office computer services has dramatically saved energy and taxpayer money. This project has already saved taxpayers over $1 million and is projected to save nearly $800,000 annually, returning back to us a return on investment.
