Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I'm 66 years of age. I'm in the United States Navy Reserve today, an active reservist as a general medical officer. There are many reservists not only in the Navy, but in other branches of the service that are beyond 42 years of age. We have a critical need for doctors, lawyers, veterinarians, dentists, other specialties in our military, even as we turn down the size of our forces. I think it's critical to have the ability for people who want to serve, who are physically fit, who can meet all the requirements to be able to do so. That's all this amendment does. It does not waive any physical requirements. It does not waive anything that is out there today for someone to enlist. It's just going to utilize people who have the capability of serving to allow them to do so. Not doing so is actually discriminating against them just because they have celebrated a few birthdays. I mentioned in my comments about an ultramarathoner that the military actually wanted. This guy was in better shape than most people who are in their twenties after they leave boot camp. The Army wanted him, but because he was just a couple of months too old, the law would not allow him to enlist. He would have served this Nation very admirably. He wanted to serve. He was physically fit. He was capable of doing anything that a 20-year- old is capable of doing today. And my amendment would allow him--as well as the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey)--to serve. Dr. Gingrey is in good physical condition. He just wants to go utilize his medical experience and provide medical services to our men and women in uniform, and he should be allowed to do so also. So I encourage my colleagues to vote for 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. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield to my friend from Arizona.

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I'm looking forward to that.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I yield to my good friend from Arizona.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply prohibit any funds in this underlying bill from being used to carry out or enforce section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Under section 5, seven States in the South, as well as Arizona, Texas, and a number of counties scattered across the country, are required to receive Federal pre-clearance to every change they make in election laws. The provision stipulates that only changes to election law in those covered locations which are shown to be nondiscriminatory may be pre- cleared. Unfortunately, the burden of proving that a change is nondiscriminatory is on the State or locality which wishes to make the change. The standard and practice is known to be highly subjective, with no presumption of innocence. It is also highly unfair to allow some States to make changes to their election laws while other States wishing to make the same changes are forced to jump through a bunch of hoops. I know firsthand how onerous this law is. My home State of Georgia, as an example, has long struggled with the U.S. Department of Justice over its voter identification laws. They're not alone. The State of Arizona is currently suing to be free from section 5, showing evidence that it made accommodations for Spanish- speaking voters long ago. On the other side of the country, South Carolina is challenging the Department of Justice's decision to overturn its voter identification law. Mr. Chairman, as Americans, we pride ourselves in our electoral system, but the integrity of our elections is called into question when this outdated law bars States from ensuring those who come to the polls to vote are eligible to do so. I should note that I'm not the only one who believes that section 5 is an antiquated provision. Earlier this very year, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its concern about what they stated: serious constitutional questions raised by section 5's intrusion into State sovereignty. Mr. Chairman, we are supposed to be treated equal under the law. This section of Federal statute treats some States more equal than other States. There are States being discriminated against. My home State of Georgia is one of those. It's time for us to go to what the Constitution says is the way we should all be treated: equal under the law. It's long past time to put this provision to rest. I urge the support of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank my friend. I would like to remind my good friend from California that Georgia's voter identification law has been upheld by the courts. The provision of voter identification is simply to ensure integrity at the polls: that the people who are voting are the people who are supposed to be voting. We have all heard and have joked about the saying in Chicago about ``vote early and vote often.'' The only way we can ensure the integrity of the vote, the only way we can ensure that people who are voting are those who are supposed to be voting, is by having some identification. That's simply what this is all about. It's not to prohibit people from coming to the polls. It's not to prohibit or to discriminate against anybody. Who is being discriminated against here are the States, those jurisdictions that are falling under section 5. We should all be treated equal under the law. I don't believe in discrimination for or against anybody. We have a history of discrimination in my State and throughout the country, and we still have discrimination. I find discrimination deplorable--and I reject it in any manner--but we should all be treated equal under the law. We need to make sure that we have integrity at the polls. We need to make sure that the people who are voting are truly the people who say they are. I know, in some jurisdictions, a person just walks to the polling area and says, I'm Joe Smith. Then they say, Fine. I see you here on the polls. Go vote. We can't have this in this country. It's not right, and it's not fair. Joe Smith needs to have absolute assurance that the person he voted for won it fair and square--that elections are not stolen, that elections are fair, that whoever comes out at the top of the ballot is the one who really won. So this is not about discrimination. It's not preventing anyone from voting. It's simply just to make sure we have integrity so that the people across this country can be sure that their votes count and can be sure that somebody else who may be an illegal in this country or who may not be qualified to vote for whatever reason or who may have already voted but who wants to vote a second time is not doing so.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. I apologize to my dear friend from Georgia if he's gotten angry with this amendment. It was never my intent to do so. And I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment. I deplore discrimination of any kind. As far as I am concerned, I believe in the Bible. I think it's the only standard of truth that we have. As far as I am concerned, there is only one race of people: it's the human race because we all came from Adam and Eve. And no one--no one should be discriminated against for any reason. I have the same dream that Martin Luther King had, where people are accepted for their character and are not discriminated against for their skin or their forefathers or anything else. And any insinuation that I would ever believe in any kind of discrimination or that I would try to suppress anyone from having their constitutionally given rights, I detest that accusation, frankly.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I apologize for any hurt feelings that anyone has because I certainly wasn't meaning to try to hurt anybody's feelings.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. This amendment would reduce the administrative spending salaries and expense accounts in the underlying bill by just 3 percent. During this time of fiscal crisis, it is imperative that Congress works to get both entitlement as well as discretionary spending under control. As we all know, over the last 2 years, House Members have voted to reduce their own administrative accounts, their Member Representational Allowances, by just over 11 percent. Yet, over that same period, many agencies have seen much lower cuts in their spending and have even seen increases in their spending. For example, under this bill, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration would see a 12 percent increase in its salaries and expenses accounts between FY11 and FY13. The Federal Prison System would receive an additional 9 percent increase in salaries and expenses. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative would receive a 7 percent increase. The U.S. Marshals, FBI, and Drug Enforcement Administration would all receive a 6 percent increase. Now, some may argue that these agencies perform important tasks. Certainly, we can all agree that those employed by law enforcement agencies, which are funded by this bill, are deserving of the pay that they receive; but, Madam Chairman, the fiscal writing is on the wall: The U.S. Government is broke. We here in Congress must face the facts and stop the denial of our economic position and crisis that we're in. If we are serious about reducing spending, if we are serious about reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow Congress' lead to take small reductions in their administrative funding. 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 the FY11 funding levels. While this amount is small, it would pay dividends, rich dividends, resulting in nearly $875 million in savings in this bill alone. It is long past time to get serious about spending. Madam Chairman, this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant savings. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I want to remind my good friends on the other side, those who oppose this, that if my amendment is passed, the FBI still gets a 6 percent increase in what their funding is over today. So they still not only continue their funding but have an increase over current funding levels. This would just reduce the administrative costs, not the funding for the FBI agents out in the field. It's not going to interfere with the security of American citizens.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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