Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend Mr. Honda's comments. I offered eight amendments in total. Only three were held to be in order. So I'm not looking at anything specifically, except for the whole bill, to try to cut spending. Because it's absolutely critical as we go forward that we put this country back on a good fiscal standing. I believe very firmly that we need to look at every single nook and corner, every dollar spent by the Federal Government, and cut wherever we can. I think this is a reasonable request. I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would reasonably reduce funding for the Botanic Garden to the fiscal year 2008 level and transfer more than $3 million to the spending reduction account. This bill funds the garden at $12 million. I'm only asking that the Botanic Garden be funded at $9 million. Our Nation is broke. We are broke. There's no question about that. We need to face the fact that we are broke. Yet we continue to add to our enormous debt by borrowing more than $4 billion each day. I believe, and I think that the American people would agree, that it is more reasonable to ask the Botanic Garden to stop trimming their hedges and to start trimming their budgets, like many of the other offices have done within the Federal Government and like many families and businesses have done all across this Nation. We cannot afford to continue down this same path of fiscal irresponsibility that we have been heading down. I urge my colleagues to help me put America back on a different course and to support this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's remarks about this. When families face hard economic times, they look at extraneous expenses. I love plants. My wife and I work in our yard. We have plants that we baby, and she waters every day, so we certainly have a great appreciation of botanic gardens, plants, and the things that plants bring in the way of enjoyment. But when faced with hard economic times, people don't go out to Home Depot and buy more plants when they can't pay their bills, and that's the situation we're in as a Nation. Though the Botanic Garden is a very beautiful place, with a lot of very beautiful plants in it, I think it's not the responsible thing to continue to try to grow more things that are going to continue to grow the debt and spend money we just simply do not have. As we've gone through the authorization process in the three committees I'm in, and as we've gone through these appropriation bills, I'm reminded of a saying that was utilized during our founding periods, but with a new twist, and the new twist is this: Don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut that fellow behind the tree. I hear that in the authorization committees over and over again: ``We have to cut our spending but don't cut me. Cut somebody else.'' ``We have to get our debt under control, but don't cut me. Cut somebody behind the tree.'' There's nobody behind the tree. America deserves better. This is a simple cut. The Botanic Garden, as lush and pretty as it is, is not a necessary expenditure of the Federal Government, and I think the American people, if they had a choice, would support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my good friend Ander Crenshaw's comments and the comments from the other side, but we just simply have to stop spending money that we do not have. It's irresponsible to do so, and so I urge the adoption of 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, my amendment would reduce funding for the Joint Economic Committee by 25 percent and transfer more than $1 million to the deficit reduction account. The Joint Economic Committee is tasked with many of the duties of other congressional committees. Those other congressional committees already perform these duties, such as holding hearings, performing research, and studying the U.S. economy. We here in America are facing a tremendous financial crisis. The legislative branch should not be excluded during budget cut debates. The Joint Economic Committee performs overlapping duties that could easily be maintained by the Ways and Means Committee or the Budget Committee, or even the respective leadership policy committees. A 25 percent cut is very modest considering the gravity of the enormous debt that we are accumulating each and every day, and we must begin paying down that debt. Our debt level is unsustainable, totally unsustainable. We are broke as a Nation. We have to start cutting in every aspect of the government's expenditures, and I believe the Joint Economic Committee can afford it, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that this is a bicameral, bipartisan committee. But as I mentioned during my initial remarks, these functions could be very well performed by other committees. These are duplicative services, and so I urge adoption of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply reduce funding for the Office of Compliance to the fiscal year 2008 level and would transfer almost half a million dollars into the spending reduction account. At a time when we are facing such pressing fiscal crisis, we have a financial fiasco here in America because of the outrageous spending Congress has been doing by both parties. Scaling back the spending for the Office of Compliance to the 2008 level is a modest and reasonable request. We have to continue to make cuts in every corner of the budget that we can, and we have to prioritize paying down our massive Federal debt that is totally unsustainable. Again, if most offices within the Federal Government can reduce their spending back to 2008 levels, it is only logical for the Office of Compliance to do the very same. 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. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment eliminates funding to the Department of Energy's Office of Efficiency and Renewable Energy. We should be developing the vast quantities of proven energy resources readily available in this country, but instead the government continues to subsidize green technologies that are not yet ready to be used wide scale. They are neither efficient nor affordable, and Federal agencies should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. If these technologies were viable, the Federal Government would not need to give them handouts and, instead, they would be able to succeed on their own. Further, this legislation provides millions of dollars of foreign assistance to countries like China and India to implement renewable energy programs. At a time when our Nation is broke, and we are broke, why are we sending taxpayer money to our foreign competition? I urge support of this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I appreciate the gentleman from Indiana's comments, and I submit that the best way to make sure that we have that national security that my colleague from Indiana was talking about is for us to open up all of our God-given resources of energy here in this country, and we are not doing that. Mr. Chairman, we need to start doing everything we can to develop every energy source that we have, and I believe in an all-of-the-above energy policy. The best way to determine what energy policy is going to be viable and is best for America is by letting the marketplace work. I believe in the brilliance of the marketplace. The marketplace, unencumbered by taxes and regulation as well as free from government meddling in the marketplace by picking winners or losers, is the best way to develop those drastically needed energy resources. And I believe in renewable energy. But is it viable economically? And is this country going to be viable economically if we continue spending like we have been spending? And, in fact, many Members of Congress seem to have the idea that this country is going to totally dry up and blow away if the Federal Government doesn't supply everything to every entity's needs. I hear over and over again from colleagues that they want to continue this spending and that spending. In fact, in the committees--I serve on three committees--I hear my colleagues, particularly other side, talk about we have a tremendous debt that we need to deal with. But it reminds me--as I hear them also talking about not cutting programs--it reminds me of an old saying back from our founding era when our Founding Fathers were talking about the discussion in taxes. Today's mantra is ``don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut the fellow behind the tree.'' Well there's nobody behind the tree. I believe we are in an economic emergency as a Nation, and Congress needs to face the fact. We're headed towards an economic collapse as a Nation. We've got to stop picking winners and losers and let the marketplace do that. Let people vote with their dollars instead of our funding this and not funding that, subsidizing this and not subsidizing that. The best way to do these things, the best way to figure out who should be the winner or loser is let the marketplace do what it does best and let people vote with their dollars. Let people invest in things that make sense and not invest in those things that don't make sense. And we've got a lot of renewables such as this corn-based ethanol that doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense economically, and it doesn't make sense even from an energy perspective. In fact, I'm a good Southern boy. I love my grits and cornbread. It makes absolutely no sense for me to be burning up my grits and cornbread driving down the road putting it in the gas tank of my GMC Yukon. So we need to let the marketplace do its thing. We need to reel in the spending that Republicans and Democrats alike over the last several decades have been using to grow the size and scope of government. So I encourage my colleagues on both sides to support this amendment. It makes sense economically. 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, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I will try to be expeditious and comply with my friend from Washington's request to not delay this. This amendment simply prohibits the Department of Energy from spending money to implement the Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram within the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's ``Clean Cities'' program. Earlier, I offered an amendment to cut funding from this program and transfer it into the spending reduction account. As I mentioned before when I presented my previous amendment, it is not appropriate for the Federal Government to be spending dollars on programs that the private sector should be doing or that local and State government can do. This program, this Vehicle Technologies Deployment Subprogram, is corporate welfare. I remind my friends, this is corporate welfare. And, in fact, I have heard over and over from my friends on the Democrat side that we need to stop doing corporate welfare. And I hope that they will support this amendment because that's what this simply is. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the committee's cutting this program down to the $26 million. But, again, this is corporate welfare to Fortune 100 companies, many that get these funds. We do need to reduce this country's dependence upon foreign oil, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it is to open up exploration of our own energy resources here in America. This is a commonsense amendment to strike out about $26.5 million out of funding that we just simply don't have. It's money that we're borrowing from our foreign competitors as well as here in this country, and it's creating more and more debt. So I urge passage of my amendment. 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, my amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring more than $820 million to the spending reduction account. Contained within this $820 million reduction are some of the most egregious examples of government waste imaginable, such as $47 million for undetermined upgrades--undetermined upgrades--$20 million for the energy innovation hub for batteries, $4 million for energy efficient-enabling materials, and almost $9 million for the experimental program to stimulate competitive research. In my extensions, I will list a whole lot of other egregious examples of government waste that this amendment will cut. These are just some of the many examples of duplicative, wasteful examples within the Department of Energy's Office of Science that are funded by taxpayer dollars that would be cut by this amendment. While I believe the Federal Government does have a role in vital basic science research, I do not believe the Federal Government should be spending scarce taxpayers' dollars on every type of research imaginable or suggested here in Congress. Much of the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector. Tough fiscal decisions have to be made, and they have to be made right now. We have put off bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process far too long. Members of Congress need to look far and wide through every single nook, cranny, and corner of the Federal expenditures and cut wasteful, duplicative spending. And this is just an amendment that will cut over $820 million of those kinds of projects that we just cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. My amendment cuts funding within the Department of Energy's Office of Science, transferring $820,488,000 dollars to the spending reduction account. Contained within this $820,488,000 reduction are some of the most egregious examples of government waste: $20 million for Energy Innovation Hub for Batteries; $24.3 million for Fuels from sunlight Energy Hub; $547,075,000 for Biological and Environmental Research; $8 million for Solar Electricity from Photovoltaics; $16 million for Carbon capture and sequestration; $8 million for Advanced solid-state lighting; $4 million for Energy Efficient--Enabling Materials; $10 million for Methane hydrates; $47 million for Undetermined upgrades; $15 million for Energy systems simulation--internal combustion engine; $8.52 million for Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research; $4 million for Physical behaviors of materials-- Photovoltaics; 52,741,000 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo sciences--Solar Photochemistry; $43,003,000.00 for Chemical sciences, biosciences and geo sciences--Geosciences; and $12,849,000 for Workforce development. While I believe the federal government does have a role in vital basic science research, I do not believe the federal government should be spending scarce taxpayer dollars on all types of research. Much of the research done in the agency should be done in the private sector. Tough fiscal decisions have to be made now! We have put off for too long bringing discipline to the budget and appropriations process. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. 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 move to strike the last word.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Shimkus' and Mr. Inslee's amendment, and I congratulate them on bringing this very important amendment to the floor in this appropriations bill. Just across the Savannah River from my district is the Savannah River site. I've been over there very many times, and I am very concerned about the storage of nuclear materials that are there on the site, and that's happening all over this country. We hear people talk about this as nuclear waste, but I don't view it that way. In fact, there is a tremendous amount of energy in the fuel rods and in the nuclear material that's being stored at facilities all over this country. We just don't know how to utilize it, and we're just beginning that process. Some of these fast reactors, small modular reactors, would burn up a lot of this nuclear material and would provide energy that is drastically needed. Yet, Mr. Chairman, one man from Nevada--a staffer, who left from being on staff in the U.S. Senate and went to the administration--has, what I consider to be, illegally closed up Yucca Mountain. This administration has illegally closed up Yucca Mountain. This facility has been studied at great lengths. I'm on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and am the Subcommittee chairman for Investigations and Oversight. We've looked at this. We've had hearings. In fact, I just recently had a group of people from our local area, the Augusta area--and North Augusta, in the South Carolina area of Aiken County, where SRS is--testify about what's going on and about Yucca Mountain. It is critical that we as a Congress do what the law requires. We need a central repository. We need somewhere we can store this material, not as waste, but we need a repository so that this material can be set in a safe, scientifically studied area that won't harm anybody. Yucca fits all of those categories. It's the only place in this country that does. We can store this material until we can utilize it. We need to be energy independent as a Nation. Nuclear energy is going to be one of the keys of an all-of-the-above energy policy. We, on our side, have been fighting for that, and I know some Democrats are very supportive of nuclear energy, as I am. I am an ardent supporter of nuclear energy, and I think it's absolutely critical in order for us to go forward. Yucca Mountain has to be a part of that formula, and we cannot close it up. We've spent billions of taxpayer dollars on this facility. One man, because he doesn't want it in his backyard, has prompted this administration to close it up. We've got to open it up. So I congratulate Mr. Inslee and particularly my dear friend John Shimkus from Illinois for bringing this amendment to the floor. We need to support it. We need to have a vote on it so that we can show how important this is to Members of Congress. I congratulate them, and I wholeheartedly support it, and hope other Members of Congress will support it, too. I yield back the balance of my time.

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