Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate it. The purpose of this is just transparency so that American citizens can know exactly what's going on.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you. I appreciate it. The purpose is, as we consolidate programs, we have all of these employees in the Department of Education who are going to lose a lot of their function. As we do so, particularly with sequestration and with the scarce dollars in the Federal Government across the board, we need to know who is doing what and what they're being paid and what they're being paid for.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I inquire as to how much time I have left.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield 1 minute to my friend from Indiana (Mr. Rokita).

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I was interested in my good friend from California's comments. He just very openly displayed the difference in philosophies between my friends on the other side and of many of us on this side, and that's a difference of opinion. My friends on the other side seem to think that the Federal Government needs to direct and be involved in everything with regard to human endeavor, though, constitutionally, we don't have the authority to do that. This is an amendment that just asks for transparency so that, hopefully, we, the people across this country, can see who is doing what within the Department of Education. It just opens up the opportunity so that, as we do consolidate the various programs within the Department, we can see what the bureaucrats within the Department are being paid and what they're doing for that amount of money that they're receiving out of the Federal Treasury. We all need to be held accountable, we all need to be held responsible, and this is just a means of just--not adding work. The gentleman said it's a ``do nothing'' amendment. He should support it then if it's a ``do nothing'' amendment. I don't understand why he so objects to it, and I hope that he will change his mind and support it. I have tremendous respect for my friend. I consider him a good friend. He has been a great Member of Congress, and he has fought very hard for his philosophy. Our philosophies just seem to be a little bit different. I encourage all Members to support this transparency amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Corporal Armando Torres, a 25-year-old marine and Iraq war vet, who finds himself in a desperate situation. More than 2 months ago, Corporal Torres was kidnapped, along with his father and uncle, from a Mexican ranch. While the media's lack of attention has their kidnappers thinking we've just given up, my colleagues and my fellow marines in the House of Representatives have a different message: marines will not leave their brothers behind, and the U.S. should not either. We will not rest until we bring Corporal Torres home. Now is the time to send a message to Torres' kidnappers that their actions against a U.S. citizen and a marine veteran will not be tolerated. I urge my fellow marines to join me on the House floor and to demand action for Corporal Torres and his family.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today cuts significant amounts from a number of programs which I have traditionally targeted for spending reductions. Now, I commend my friends, the full committee chairman, Hal Rogers, and the subcommittee chairman, also a good friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen, for these cuts, and I congratulate them on such. That being said, we're at a time of a real fiscal emergency. Congress has allowed the sequester to happen, and we can see some of the effects of the sequester in this underlying bill. I opposed the use of the sequester from the get-go because I believe that governmentwide, across-the-board cuts are not a wise way of cutting spending. I believe that it's bad policy. Instead of furloughing civilian DOD employees and cutting our military, we ought to make targeted cuts where there's room to do so. This amendment, Mr. Chairman, would do just that. It would trim just a small additional 1 percent, or about $9.8 million, from programs relating to renewable energy and energy efficiency, and put that amount toward spending reduction. The committee report for the underlying bill notes that funding for these programs prioritizes reducing gas prices and supporting American manufacturing. And absolutely, we must be doing those things. Yet, these funds are focused on technologies which are still emerging, like new vehicle technology, hydrogen and fuel cell technology, and bio- energy. Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing that these technologies aren't worth studying. What I'm suggesting is that we--and I'm not suggesting that we completely defund them. I'm suggesting we make a mere 1 percent cut towards the proposed spending level. What I'm saying is that we make this small additional cut and work towards getting our fiscal house in order before pouring scarce funding into new, unproven technology. I urge support of 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. This amendment would reduce the appropriations that are suggested for the energy programs relating to renewable energy, energy reliability, and efficiency by $4.751 million and increase the spending reduction account by that same amount. It is meant to eliminate the committee-recommended increase to funding for facilities and infrastructure under this section of the bill. Mr. Chairman, we must do everything that we can to rein in spending. We're facing an economic emergency as a Nation. My friends, particularly on the other side, seem to not face the fact that we're headed for an economic meltdown if we don't stop this uncontrolled spending that I believe is irresponsible. My amendment is not a cut to funding, but to simply eliminate a proposed increase, keeping the appropriated amount at the current level we have right now today. I believe this is a commonsense amendment, I urge my colleagues to support it, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for basic energy science research by cutting 10 percent out of its $1.5 billion budget. It would apply those funds to the spending reduction account. Basic energy science is a worthy goal to explore fundamental phenomena and create scientific knowledge to keep our technologies and ideas on the global, leading edge. However, it is not the Federal Government's function to act as a venture capitalist for science theory research. I believe that this endeavor is instead best left to our world-renowned universities and private institutions. My amendment does not stop this research. It would simply put it on balance with the reductions that have already been applied in the bill to our present energy resources. In this bill, general science is cut by only 5 percent, while research on fossil fuels and nuclear energy is cut by 17 percent and 14 percent respectively. We're in an economic emergency, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation is facing an economic meltdown, and Federal dollars are very scarce. As we face this huge budget deficit together, we've got to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. 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 eliminates the remaining funding for the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing Loan program, transferring $6 million to the Spending Reduction Account. Since 2008, the U.S. Government has been in the business of lending money to build cars that no one wants to buy. For instance, $50 million went to the Vehicle Production Group for natural gas minivans. That company failed. Meanwhile, $190 million went to Fisker Automotive to make electric cars that catch on fire. For instance, the Karma, Fisker's hybrid-electric luxury sedan, which cost around $100,000 apiece, was recalled to fix a hose connection that allowed coolant leaks into the battery chamber, causing an electrical short. Fortunately, no one was hurt before production was ended. Unfortunately, taxpayers got back only a fraction of the payout. Mr. Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel-efficient automobiles. However, there's simply no good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion- dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke. It is time that we begin to reverse this disturbing trend of energy loan programs for companies and let the automobile industry succeed or fail in the marketplace on its own merits. We have to stop these kinds of subsidies, particularly in these hard times when our Nation is in an economic emergency. I urge support of this commonsense amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the appropriations for the Department of Energy's salaries and expenses by $9.5 million and place that amount in the spending reduction account. When combined with the reduction included in the underlying bill, this amount would represent a 25 percent cut from current levels. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this may seem somewhat drastic. However, I've spoken again and again today about the fiscal emergency facing our country. There are legitimate constitutional functions of the Federal Government which must be funded, particularly those that relate to our national defense. Yet even those functions are facing cuts--deep cuts. This means that prioritization is necessary so that we may determine our wants versus our needs. We need to open up access to new sources of energy. We need to stop being dependent on foreign oil. The Department of Energy has done very little to further either of these goals. In fact, according to its original purpose of being stood up, it has been a dismal failure. Certainly, there are advances to be made in current technology. But in the here and now, we know that we are sitting on vast resources that are so tied up in red tape it could be decades before they could come to fruition. The House has passed several bills--and will continue to pass bills-- to lighten the Federal burden and bring true energy freedom to this country. But the Senate and the administration disagree with us. They would rather throw millions upon millions towards new sources of clean energy, some of which have turned into highly publicized wastes of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, we need to prioritize developing the resources that we have now. Unfortunately, the Department of Energy has proven time and again it is out of touch with the needs of our country. The bureaucrats responsible for putting the Solyndras of the world above traditional sources of energy pull in more than $100,000 a year on average, all the while doing little to lighten costs for American families. In fact, despite a supposed hiring freeze, the Department of Energy's Web site, right now today, is currently advertising 31 job openings paying over $105,000 per year. This is ridiculous, Mr. Chairman, and it must stop. My amendment would force the Department of Energy to reevaluate its priorities and put our current needs first rather than hoping that new, clean sources of energy will pan out eventually. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today has great potential to create jobs, to boost our economy, and provide our country with new, much-needed sources of energy. But as written, it also has the potential to invite frivolous, duplicative lawsuits filed by outside entities with no real tie to the individual contracts stemming from this legislation. Mr. Chairman, we have seen it happen time and time again: situations in which the community, the developer, and the Federal Government are all on the same page, but plans are ultimately ground to a halt by activist environmental groups that file lawsuit after lawsuit in order to stop the development in its tracks. My amendment would stop this cycle as it relates to projects begun under this bill. It would allow individuals and groups not party to a lease under this bill to file a suit once--only once--within 60 days of an official action under the bill. Should a suing entity lose, it would be allowed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and final resolution would have to be reached within 180 days. Finally, my amendment would also include a ``loser pays'' standard, meant to protect taxpayers and discourage the filing of a suit without true legal merit. Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill would do much to move our country ahead, but I fear that we will not reach our full potential unless this important language is included.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I urge support of my amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm not advocating for ``loser pays'' in all civil cases. My amendment relates only to these specific cases, in which an extremist environmental group files suit after suit simply to stop the development of natural resources and energy resources on American soil. Under my amendment, parties to a lease aren't subject to this standard. Furthermore, my amendment does not undo the ability for members of the community who are concerned about a particular lease to petition the government--State or Federal--during the NEPA process. Finally, while I understand the concern that ``loser pays'' harms complainants with the least amount of disposable income, I would simply say that near-record gas prices are harming them and are hurting the most vulnerable in our society, poor people and senior citizens on limited income. In fact, my colleague from Georgia, my good friend, was saying it's unnecessary. But if it's unnecessary, he shouldn't be afraid of this amendment. This is a commonsense amendment, and I urge its support. I yield back the balance of my time.