Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman for just one second.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I am not sure where my friend gets his mathematics from, but it's certainly not in reality. I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I am going to reserve the balance of my time until the time to close.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. The gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was just charged by this gentleman for hating America, and I challenge those words, and I ask that his words be taken down.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, the gentleman did obviously direct remarks towards me. He pointed at me when he said: ``Why do you hate America so much?'' I love my country. I'm a U.S. marine. I'm trying to save my country from financial collapse. And that's what this is all about: stop spending money that we don't have. We've got to finish the projects that we've already started, those that have already been approved and funded, before we start dipping into the general fund. It's estimated that we'll have a shortfall of $8 billion to $9 billion if this motion to instruct is not put in place. We cannot afford the status quo. Their argument is to continue spending money, continue down a road that is going to cause a financial collapse of this Nation, in my opinion. We need to create jobs. We need to get this country going economically. The policies of this administration have not worked. Policies that were put forward while Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of this House, with the stimulus bill and other big spending bills just have been essentially abject failures. We cannot continue spending money that we don't have, and that's the reason I brought this motion forward, a motion to instruct the conferees to spend--continue transportation funding, continue building our transportation infrastructure, which I think is absolutely critical for economic development. But creating more debt is not the answer. I resent being accused of hating America, and it angers me when I'm accused, personally accused by somebody that I thought was a friend. And I'm going to try very hard not to take this personally. I will not carry a grudge because I know, from my heart, we can disagree on issues, and I don't take it personally. But when he pointed at me and accused me of hating America, that's the reason I asked for his words to be taken down. And what I ask my colleagues in this House to do is look in their hearts, because we absolutely have to change the way this House, this Congress, this government is doing business. We cannot continue spending ourselves to oblivion, and that's the way we're headed. We need to create jobs. We need to create a strong economy. This has not been about tax increases or tax decreases, as has been accused tonight. This is about spending money that we have, and no more. I encourage my colleagues to please vote for this motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Broun of Georgia moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to insist on provisions that limit funding out of the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway and transit programs to amounts that do not exceed $37,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the administrative salaries in the expense accounts in the underlying bill by just 3 percent, with the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard. It does not affect their expenses. Our Nation is facing a total economic meltdown, and now more than ever it is apparent that we have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington, D.C. Over the last 2 years, House Members have voted to reduce their own administrative accounts--their Members' Representational Allowances--by more than 11 percent. Yet over that same period of time, many agencies have seen minimal reductions and, in some cases, even increases in their accounts. For a good example, the TSA has only experienced a 3.5 percent cut over the last 2 years. I know many of my colleagues can agree that the TSA has not only been a complete and utter failure, but it also has been a colossal waste of taxpayer money, amounting to almost $60 billion. Moreover, TSA personnel have not prevented the first terrorist attack from happening on American soil. In fact, at least 17 known terrorists have flown in the United States more than 24 different times. Yet this year, TSA screener personnel will receive increased funding for their compensation and benefits that totals more than $30 million above fiscal year 2012. This is totally unacceptable. Another example I'd like to point to in the underlying bill is funding for a brand new agency called the Office of Biometric Identity Management. This new office will receive almost $200 million for their administrative salaries and expense accounts. Mr. Chairman, we need to be looking for areas where we can make cuts, not for opportunities to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government. Now, certainly we can all agree that many of the offices, agencies, and individuals employed by the Department of Homeland Security are very deserving of the pay for which they receive but, Mr. Chairman, let's be realistic. If we are serious about reducing spending and reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow Congress' lead and take a small reduction in their administrative funding instead of asking for increases or trying to create new programs. To be clear, a 3 percent reduction in these accounts would, in many cases, still result in less than a 10 percent reduction in funding from FY11 levels. While this amount is small, it would pay dividends, huge dividends, resulting in nearly a half a billion dollars in savings in this bill alone. It is long past time to get serious about spending, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant savings. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to reduce spending in these accounts by just a mere 3 percent. 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, my amendment would completely eliminate funding for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and transfer that money into the deficit reduction account, saving taxpayers more than $5 billion. The fact of the matter is very simple: TSA is not doing the job that it was created to do 10 years ago. Originally, Congress intended for TSA to be an efficient, cutting- edge, intelligence-based agency responsible for protecting our airports and keeping passengers safe and secure. Today it has grown into one of the largest bureaucracies, bigger than the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and State all combined--larger than all of those. They've had a 400 percent increase in staff over the past 10 years. A good portion of that has gone to headquarter employees making six figures on average. What's worse is that American passengers aren't getting a good return on the nearly $60 billion that they've invested and spent on TSA. Reports indicate that more than 25,000 security breaches have occurred at U.S. airports since 2001. Plus, we have evidence today that terrorists that are on the no-fly list have been still able to fly successfully aboard U.S. aircraft. On top of this startling information, we've all seen the recent news headlines detailing the lack of professionalism, unreliable training, and even alleged corruption in the TSA ranks. Just about the only thing that TSA is good at is using its extensive power to violate American travelers' civil liberties. The stories range from embarrassing near- strip searches all the way to agents being hired without background checks. This is all evidence that TSA has veered dangerously off course from what it was intended to do. I've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on intelligence and technologies that can be more effective when it comes to catching terrorists--instead of patting down grandmas and children. I've demanded Administrator Pistole's resignation, and I've called for the privatization of TSA, along with some of my other colleagues here in the House. But we have still yet to see the necessary changes made to the TSA personnel or procedures that will ensure the safety and security of our airports and passengers. Mr. Chairman, this amendment to zero out funding for TSA forces Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to start all over again, start from scratch on a better, more effective, more progressive system for protecting our airlines without violating the person and liberties of our citizens. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Arizona's amendment. In fact, he beat me to the microphone because I had intended to introduce the same amendment that he is presenting to us now. I would like to say that this amendment of Mr. Flake's will keep funding the State and local programs that fall under FEMA set at those 2012 levels. It does not affect disaster assistance, only State and local programs. Mr. Chairman, our Nation is broke and many Agencies, along with entire branches of the Federal Government, are experiencing drastic cutbacks. As it stands, the underlying bill increases funding for State and local FEMA programs by more than $400 million. While I'm well aware that FEMA provides necessary support for various grant training programs, I'm also a firm believer that these would be better regulated solely by State and local governments, not by the Federal Government. Therefore, I feel it is more than reasonable to ask that, for right now, particularly while we are in such a crisis economically as a Nation, that we simply freeze funding for these programs at the 2012 level. I congratulate my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his amendment and I heartily support it. I congratulate him on his longstanding efforts to bring the Federal Government into fiscal sanity. I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding. I would just remark about, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington State's remark. The countries in Europe are failing because they spend too much money. The government does not make jobs. It's the private sector that makes jobs. Republicans have passed bill after bill after bill here in the House that Harry Reid throws in the trash can as soon as they get over to the Senate. We've passed bills here that would lower the cost of gasoline and oil. Natural gas, of course, is very low because of the amount that we have, and it's gone down because the marketplace works. We need to develop our God-given resources.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the administrative and salaries and expenses accounts in the underlying bill by just 3 percent. It is similar to an amendment that I offered to the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill just a few weeks ago. My message today is the same as it was then: we are in a fiscal emergency, and it is imperative that we work to get spending under control here in Washington, D.C. Over the last 2 years, the House has voted to reduce our own administrative accounts--our Members representational allowances--by over 11 percent. As we all know, this has resulted in pay freezes, and in some cases pay cuts, for a number of our own staff members. Yet during this same period of time, many agencies have seen reductions which are much lower than those which we have taken here in the House. Amazingly, some of these Agencies funded under this bill have seen large increases in their administrative accounts. For example, under this bill, the Appalachian Regional Commission would receive a 9 percent increase in its administrative account over the FY11 FY13 period. Likewise, the salaries and the expenses account for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board would see a 21 percent increase. But if you think those increases are big, think again. This legislation would provide the Department of Energy's departmental administration account with a 64 percent increase over 2 years. Mr. Chairman, I'm not arguing the merits of any of these Agencies. But during this fiscal crisis, just 3 percent could yield significant savings--nearly $30 million in the case of Agencies funded under this bill. It's time to tighten our belts. I urge support on my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chairman, my amendment would reduce funding for the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy account by $355 million, with the intention of removing all funding for vehicle technologies. This reduction would be transferred to the spending reduction account. Madam Chairman, I'm 100 percent supportive of the automobile industry producing more fuel-efficient automobiles if they choose to do so; however, there is simply no good reason that the Federal Government should be subsidizing billion-dollar companies at a time when our Nation is broke. Over the past few years, we have seen the automobile industry receive an unprecedented amount of government assistance. We've seen an industry bailout, the market-distorting Cash for Clunkers, and many more subsidies all done with little regard for taxpayer money. It's time we begin to reverse this disturbing trend and let the automobile industry succeed or fail on its own merits. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 4348. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Broun of Georgia moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 4348 be instructed to insist on provisions that limit funding out of the Highway Trust Fund (including the Mass Transit Account) for Federal-aid highway and transit programs to amounts that do not exceed the following levels: (1) $37,900,000,000 for fiscal year 2012. (2) $37,500,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.

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 is very straightforward. It would simply allow individuals of any age to enlist in the military so long as they were able to meet all of the requirements to ensure that they're fit for duty. Under current law, only individuals who are 42 years of age or younger are allowed to enlist in the military. This seems to be an arbitrary number. As we can all probably attest, there are some 20- year-olds that cannot run a mile. Yet there are a growing number of middle-aged men and women who are extremely physically fit and, whether due to family, work, or other obligations, were unable to enlist when they were younger. I've heard from some of these individuals. Mr. Chairman. They are competitive runners, triathletes, and general fitness enthusiasts. I daresay they are stronger and fitter than many younger people, and they have an added benefit of life experience and maturity. Yet when they attempt to use these skills to serve their country, the military tells them, We don't want you, you're too old. Not long ago, I heard from a man who was in just this situation. He is a competitive ultra-marathoner, the picture of health. This gentleman, who after starting a family and establishing a career, decided he was finally able to realize his dream of serving in his country's military. Unfortunately, he was told that he was just a few months too old. As a result, he could not enlist. While stories like this gentleman's are compelling, there are other loss potentials to consider, also. One of our colleagues, my good friend and the gentleman from my home State of Georgia, Dr. Phil Gingrey, has experienced a similar issue. He's not trying to serve in combat. He's not trying to get a military retirement. He simply wants to serve his country using his training as a medical doctor. He went to enlist in the Navy Reserve; and to his surprise he was told that he was too old, even as the need for good medical doctors in the military ranks continues to grow. We should allow people like Dr. Gingrey to enlist in the military. My amendment would do just that. We'll hear a number of Members on the floor today who are expressing concern about the multiple tours that so many of our men and women in uniform have had to serve, often back to back over many years. I share this concern; and I believe that if we were to lift this age restriction, we could open up the military to a new population of strong, capable individuals, who in many cases have finished their education and their careers, and have seen their children grow into adulthood. Many of them aren't seeking military retirement, but rather have advanced in their careers, put away enough for retirement, and are ready for a new challenge. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.