On the recordMay 1, 2014
I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chair, I also rise in opposition to my Florida colleague's amendment, which seeks to dictate to other Members how to spend their office budgets. It is important to note that I also do not lease a vehicle. The bill already sets a limit on what Members can spend on vehicle leases to ensure that costs are appropriately controlled. The Nugent amendment would go further and prevent long-term vehicle leases unless they are classified as mobile district offices. The problem with the gentleman from Florida's amendment is the same as we have had with other similar amendments in the past that have sought to restrict or eliminate Members' use of funds for their office budgets. We have Members that represent entire States or very large geographic areas. Removing transportation options for Members trying to effectively represent their constituents forces a one-size-fits-all approach to serving our congressional districts, and we know that is not reasonable nor does it make sense. The House makes statements of disbursements available to the public so that our constituents can judge us on the purchases that we make. Each Member has to answer to his or her constituents if they spend inappropriately or if they make purchases that are at odds with the sensibilities of those that sent the Member to office. We don't need to dictate to each other how we can most effectively do our jobs.…





