Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce Amtrak's Office of the Inspector General by $1 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. This reduction would eliminate a proposed increase to that account, keeping the funding level just like it is today for the coming year. I spoke about Amtrak's failings at length during the consideration of the first title of this bill. Amtrak consistently runs at a massive operating deficit. The long- distance routes are continually in the red, and the food and beverage service only nets a 65 percent return on what it spends despite paying its staff six-figure salaries, which is way above what the average American can expect to make in salary. My colleagues who support Amtrak--and maybe even some who don't--will likely say that, if any part of this embattled entity deserves more funding, it is the inspector general. And, yes, the Office of the Inspector General has rooted out some fraud, and it has discovered some significant overpayments, but, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that health benefits fraud and overpayments are things that are just the tip of a very large and very obvious iceberg. It is not some great mystery why Amtrak is hemorrhaging money. The long-distance routes lose incredible amounts of money, and taxpayers are being bilked for this tremendous amount of loss. It is breathtaking, really, that we continue to turn a blind eye to more than a half a billion dollars lost year after year just to sustain these routes which carry fewer than 5 million passengers annually. That number may sound large, but meanwhile, in 2012, there were more than 815 million ticketed airline passengers in the United States. How about the food and beverage service on Amtrak trains? Over the last 5 years, this service has resulted in nearly $400 million in losses. Yes, the Office of the Inspector General does decent work, and I commend the Office for exposing and admitting Amtrak's history of cooking its books to make the losses sustained by these long-distance routes and the food and beverage service look slightly less awful than they actually are; but in this time of fiscal emergency, I think it would be prudent to tell the Amtrak OIG to work on the obvious issues first. Take care of the big problems before hiring new staff to look for new issues that are dwarfed by what we already know. I urge the support of my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remove the $7 million increase over current spending levels, this year, fiscal year 2014 funding levels, to the rental housing assistance account to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account. I understand that times are tough nationwide. They are tough for families, they are tough for businesses, and everyone has had to cut back. Unfortunately, the fact remains that we as our Nation are in an incredible amount of debt. It is an unsustainable amount of debt. Let me be clear, I am not asking that we cut funding for this program at all above this year's level. I am just asking that we simply hold the line--fund what we have been funding, not increase it, as proposed by this legislation. I think it is irresponsible to continue expanding programs without being able to pay for them. We are in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are headed to an economic collapse of America if we don't stop spending money that we don't have. We have to restore fiscal sanity to Washington. I am just asking that we hold the line on this program. Cut the $7 million increase that is proposed. I think that is reasonable. It is not a cut over current funding; it is holding the line. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will try again. This amendment is much like my previous amendment. As I noted before, this bill provides for a $200 million increase above the President's request in the Community Development Block Grant program, by his request, the President's request, the Democratic President's request for the FY 2015 budget. My previous amendment would have removed that $200 million increase above the President's request in its entirety. This amendment just cuts 10 percent of that increase above the President's request, $20 million--which is a lot of money to most Georgians, it seems to be not a lot of money around here, but it is a lot of money to me--and it transfers that sum to the spending reduction account. Mr. Chairman, I spoke earlier about wasteful spending being funded by the Community Development Block Grant program, and I would like to take this opportunity to provide some examples. The State of Nebraska has directed approximately $500,000 in taxpayer funds, hard-earned money, from the CDBG grant program to a pet shampoo company. The State of Vermont has directed $255,000 of its Federally-funded Community Development Block Grant to support a program for graduates for the Center of Cartoon Studies. The Community Development Block Grant program has provided $356,000 to pay for infrastructure improvements for a meat snack manufacturer that makes beef jerky. Mr. Chairman, I love pets--particularly dogs--I love cartoons, and I really like beef jerky, and I like these things as much as anyone, but I fail to see how it is appropriate for the Federal Government to provide taxpayer money to fund these projects. Again, I am not asking to eliminate the Community Development Block Grant program or even cut its funding below the FY 2014 levels. Obviously, my amendment to cut out the increase above the President's requested amount to CDBG failed. Now, I am just asking to cut out just 20 percent of that increase above the President's level. So if my colleagues cannot bring themselves to cut the entire $200 million increase over the President's budget request, then let's cut at least one small percentage of that increase, just 10 percent, and save the American taxpayers $20 million. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, two of my colleagues just came asking to increase the Community Development Block Grant program by $100 million, and actually, the bill itself has an increase above the President's request by $200 million. Sometimes, I agree with the President, and sometimes, I don't; and this is one time I do agree with the President. The President only requested $2.8 billion for the Community Development Block Grant program, and this bill would appropriate $3 billion. So my amendment would remove the $200 million increase over the Obama administration's FY 2015 budgetary request--and only increase--from the Community Development Block Grant program and transfer that amount to the spending reduction account. Why the committee has chosen to go above and beyond what even the President has requested fails me. Mr. Chairman, the Community Development Block Grant program is one of the most wasteful and ineffective programs found within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It was originally proposed by President Gerald Ford in his effort to revitalize decaying and low- income neighborhoods in American cities and towns. Unfortunately, CDBG has strayed from its original purpose. Today, many of these grants have been diverted to wasteful, parochial projects, such as funding a pet shampoo company, issuing risky business loans, paying for renovation of a wealthy multinational architectural company, and I can go on and on. I am not asking that we eliminate this program or even drastically cut its funding. Mr. Chairman, I am simply asking that we do not increase this funding above what the President has asked for and that we put the rest of this large increase toward paying down our Nation's debt. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is along the same lines as the amendment I just offered, only it would reduce Amtrak operating grants by a paltry amount of only $34 million or just a 10 percent reduction. In offering my last amendment, I laid out a number of reasons why Amtrak has failed to be a good steward of taxpayers' money. I understand that many of my colleagues might not want to fully defund this entity, so I am now asking that we join together and send a message to Amtrak leadership, a smaller message, but a strong one nonetheless. I am asking my colleagues to tell Amtrak that we will not continue to reward bad behavior and that, when we ask for reform, we expect real reform to begin and take place--not fuzzy numbers, not misleading reports, not sky-high employee salaries, but real, honest reform. Amtrak has struggled for way too long under the status quo. It is time to send them a message. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the amount appropriated for the operating grants to Amtrak by $340 million and increase the spending reduction account by the same amount. This reduction would eliminate all operating funds for Amtrak. My amendment to some might be quite harsh, but I suspect that my colleagues who support Amtrak will argue that since the underlying bill keeps funding at concurrent levels, we should leave the embattled entity alone. But the committee report for this bill gives us plenty of reasons why we shouldn't allow Amtrak to continue at the status quo. The first sentence in the committee report says: Amtrak runs a deficit each year and requires a Federal subsidy to cover both operating losses and capital improvements. A couple of paragraphs later it says: Although the Northeast corridor is profitable, the federally mandated services such as long-distance and State- supported routes sustain large losses that cannot be overcome by Amtrak's profitable services. Let's talk about the long-distance routes, Mr. Chairman. According to Amtrak's fiscal year 2013 ridership tables, the long- distance routes experienced the highest ridership in 20 years at 4.8 million passengers. That sounds pretty good. But despite this growth, these routes still lost $587 million last year. In other words, for every passenger who traveled on one of Amtrak's long-distance routes last year, Amtrak lost $122.29. If you found a good deal on Priceline, we might be able to actually cut our losses by buying these passengers one-way airline tickets, and they would get to their destinations much more quickly. I wish I could say that this was the extent of Amtrak's failures. Unfortunately, I can't. Let's go back to the committee report. The report also addresses Amtrak's notoriously wasteful food and beverage service, which lost an estimated $73 million in fiscal year 2013 alone. Over the last 5 years, food and beverage service has been responsible for approximately $387 million in total losses, on top of the long-distance losses. Look at the fine print. The committee points out that Amtrak routinely cooks its books to make these losses look better, usually by transferring amounts from first class tickets onto the food and beverage accounts. The current Amtrak inspector general has reported that these transfers have increased by more than $22 million between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2012. So while the topline numbers make it look as though the food and beverage losses have gotten slightly less over the past year, with current estimated cost recovery at a paltry 65 percent, these numbers can't be trusted in the least. Had enough, Mr. Chairman? Let me leave you with one final thought: Amtrak is losing money hand over fist. They are cooking their books. There is not an end in sight. How much do you suppose Amtrak's food and beverage service employees are paid annually? According to the committee report, these 1,200 employees are paid an average $106,000 a year. Amtrak is a pseudo-private entity with priorities that are way, way out of whack, and it will not become solvent, it will not right itself, until Congress steps up and says enough is enough, and now is the time for enough. I urge my colleagues to join me and send Amtrak a message that its mismanagement should come to an end and that it is intolerable to us and the U.S. taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, during the public comment period, there was absolutely zero interest in this program--zero. The SBA already does this. I am all for manufacturing. I am all for small and medium businesses. But we do not need this program. It is an $84 billion program with no interest in it within small or medium businesses. Not one loan has been given out. All it has done is fund the bureaucrats that are established to do this program, and no loans have been made since 2010. In 4 years, zero loans, zero interest. We need to eliminate it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used for the loan guarantee program created by the America COMPETES Act of 2010, a program which is essentially an $84 billion science experiment in stimulus spending. The America COMPETES Act directed the Commerce Department to establish loan guarantees within the Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing program of the Economic Development Administration, or EDA. These government-backed loans are meant to provide small or medium- sized manufacturers with new opportunities to use, manufacture, or commercialize any innovative technology. However, authorization for America COMPETES ran out in 2013 with little passing interest from industry. In fact, not one loan has been issued under this program to date--not one, not the first one. In July of 2013, the Government Accountability Office found that the EDA had done nothing with its appropriated funds outside of establishing a staffing budget and a timeline for executing the program. At the same time, GAO noted that EDA officials had reached out to the Small Business Administration for technical assistance on how to run a loan guarantee program. Mr. Chairman, think about this for a moment. If one government agency needs to consult another government agency about how to run a program which is similar to a program that is already established elsewhere, is the new program really necessary? There are similar programs sprinkled throughout the Federal Government, yet we keep authorizing more and more. Congress needs to seriously reevaluate this approach and instead focus on real innovation in manufacturing. I would submit that if the Federal Government simply stopped taxing small and medium-sized businesses out of the country--or out of business--we would see an immediate increase in growth and new jobs, no new programs needed. The America COMPETES loan guarantee program is a wasteful, duplicative attempt to spur innovation in manufacturing by creating more bureaucracy, and we should not allow it to go any further. Not one loan has been put out by this program. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chair, I am a family physician and an addictionologist. Marijuana is addicting if it is used improperly. But used medically, and there are very valid medical reasons to utilize extracts or products from marijuana in medical procedures, it is a very valid medical use under the direction of a doctor. It is actually less dangerous than some narcotics that doctors prescribe all over this country. Also, this is a states' rights, states' power issue, because many States across the country--in fact, my own State of Georgia is considering allowing the medical use under the direction of a physician. This is a states' rights, Tenth Amendment issue. We need to reserve the states' powers under the Constitution. Please support this amendment.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, in closing, I am not cutting basic research here at all. I am suggesting cuts in the directorate. There are just silly things that they have--the Climate Change Narrative Game, for instance, and the climate change media exhibition that portrays scientists and students at work in Amazonia, which is the indoctrination of young girls. There is ``The Matter of Origins.'' I could go on and on. I believe in research. I am an applied scientist, and I am a physician. We are not cutting research. In fact, I believe in research, yet what we are doing is just trying to cut the directorate and save the taxpayers money. We are broke as a Nation, and we have just got to stop spending money at random and without, really, responsibility. I encourage the acceptance of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, this amendment would cut about $67 million from the National Science Foundation's appropriations increase--again, increase; not reduce their funding, but reduce the increase--and apply that amount to the spending reduction account. The cuts in this amount are to four areas not directly involved in basic research such as construction, education and human resources, agency operations, and the Office of the National Science Board. In 2007 and again in 2010, NSF was granted funding to launch new STEM education programs under the America COMPETES Act, not to mention the Recovery Act stimulus with the same focus. Unfortunately, the U.S. continues to fall behind in producing enough STEM workers to compete globally, and our high school graduates' math and science scores are stagnant. A 2013 GAO study found that 209 different Federal STEM education programs overlap across 13 agencies, spending a total of $3 billion--$3 billion, with a b. GAO also found that 173 of these programs shared similarities in objectives and focus. The underlying committee report acknowledges program reductions and consolidation and yet increases spending on education and human resources by $29.5 million for an abandoned program that will be taken over by existing programs. More often than not, increasing Federal Government spending on non- research science initiatives grows the Federal Government, not just the next generation of scientists. Today, we are the world's leader in combined Federal as well as private sector investment in research and development, at last estimate, $465 billion for 2014. Some are worried that China will catch up to our spending by the 2020s. Of course, those making that assumption also estimate that both the U.S. and China will be spending $600 billion each by 2022. Is Federal spending a race in which we want to engage with China? National government expenditure per capita on R&D in China is $218 per capita--again, research and development in China is $218 compared to the U.S. per person amount of $1,276. This is not sustainable. As the science community can attest, Congress often overpromises on funding and pulls the rug out on projects halfway through. NSF is sitting on unnecessary and outmoded facilities without needed action on whether to close and sell. NSF should not be given more money for new facilities until it is established that NSF is operating existing facilities efficiently and effectively. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate that.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I appreciate the offer of both gentlemen to work with me. It is our responsibility in Congress to have oversight. I am the chairman of the Oversight Committee on Science, Space and Technology. We have had tremendous problems with not only this department, but many others, in getting people to come and just tell us what is going on, to testify before our committee. We have been rebuffed and rebuffed time and time again, ignored time and time again by this administration. This is the only way I see to get at these people.