On the recordJune 10, 2016
Madam Chair, I have tremendous respect for the gentleman from New Mexico and his concerns for the operation of the Office of Congressional Ethics. However, all that we would be doing here, if his amendment were to pass, is to send a $190,000 message to the Office of Congressional Ethics. It would not achieve any of the gentleman's goals. If we do need to take a look at the way the office functions, then there is a process for doing that. The only thing we achieve here by adopting this amendment is cutting their budget by $190,000. So, if the majority believes that it is important to take a look at the function of this office, then there is a process for doing that and to take up legislation to change the way they do business. That is certainly appropriate. But we don't accomplish any of the gentleman's goals by cutting $190,000. In fact, the public has certainly already sent multiple messages to the United States Congress that they don't have a whole lot of confidence in the business that we are doing here. This would send the absolute wrong message back to them--that we don't get it. So I urge Members to oppose the amendment because it would not achieve the gentleman's goals and because we have a more appropriate place to actually achieve those goals in the authorizing committee. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).…





