Paul Broun

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding. I believe in ``equal under the law.'' We all ought to be considered equal, no matter what color our skin is, no matter who the fathers of our own families are, et cetera. I think everybody should be treated equally under the law. And, certainly, as I stated--I apologize if the gentlelady from Texas thought that I was insinuating that she would agree with this amendment, because I never had any dreams that she would, frankly. But with that, I'm introducing a lot of amendments to this bill to reduce administrative expenses and salaries for many, many of the different pieces of this underlying bill. And this is just one of many. But I'm convinced that I need to withdraw this amendment. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment would simply reduce funding for administrative expenses within the Federal Railroad Administration by $5,404,000. This office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which is slated to receive increases for administrative expenses, despite the fiscal emergency that we're facing as a Nation. This, like many of the amendments that I'm bringing, would just reduce funding back to current levels, back to the FY12 levels. We have many sections of this bill that are slated to be increased. But as we face an economic emergency as a Nation, as we're spending money that we don't have--40 cents of every dollar we're spending is being borrowed--we just have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington. This amendment would simply bring the administrative expenses for the Federal Railroad Administration back to current levels. It would not reduce the functions of the administration. It would just keep funding at the current levels. It makes sense to just stop increasing, so I urge support of my amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. My amendment would reduce funding for the administrative expenses within the Federal Transit Administration by $1,287,000. This office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which is slated to receive increases for administrative expenses despite the dire fiscal environment we have in our Nation, but we've got to stop the outrageous spending that government has been doing. The passage of my amendment would simply bring the funding level for these administrative expenses that are within the Federal Transit Administration back to the level of this year. It would just reduce the increase back to current levels. I urge the support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment would reduce funding for the administrative expenses for the Maritime Guaranteed Loan program by $10,000. That's all. It doesn't sound like much, but it freezes spending at the current levels. I believe very firmly that we ought to cut spending in this House. We've cut our MRAs, our own operating accounts for our own administrative expenses by 11 percent. What this amendment does, it freezes at the current fiscal year '12 levels. It is a minor amount of money to most folks, but still, $10,000 is a lot of money to this old Georgia boy. So I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, this, like many amendments I'm offering tonight, would freeze spending at the FY12 levels. We've just got to stop spending money we don't have, Madam Chairman. I recommend adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Chair, my amendment will reduce funding for salaries and expenses for the Surface Transportation Board by $1,940,000. This office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which would receive increases for administrative expenses in this underlying bill. Passage of my amendment would simply bring funding levels back to current levels, fiscal year 2012. Madam Chair, we are spending money we don't have. We have reduced our own operating expenses as Members of the House by 11 percent, over 11 percent, and this amendment would just freeze--would prevent any increase in the salaries and expenses for the Surface Transportation Board--to this year's level. We've got to be fiscally responsible, Madam Chairman, as a Nation. We've got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington. And this doesn't even stop it; this just freezes it at the current levels. This, hopefully, is going to put a little spotlight on the fact that we need to stop spending money we don't have, stop borrowing 40 cents on every dollar the Federal Government spends. My amendment would just freeze spending at the current levels. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Madam Speaker, ObamaCare has not taken full effect yet, but it is already crippling our country and our economy: premiums are rising; businesses are shedding jobs; doctors and patients are constantly dealing with a third party making health care decisions--and that's the Federal Government. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has some of these same concerns about ObamaCare; and, hopefully, they will strike down both the individual mandate and the entire law. However the Court rules, though, ObamaCare must go. In the GOP Doctors Caucus, we know that the American health care system needs some serious surgery. We have brought forth many ideas to do just that. For example, my OPTION Act will revitalize American health care, not through government interference but by giving doctors and patients full control over their dollars and their decisions. When ObamaCare falls, my bill stands ready to provide the health care relief that Americans both want and need. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will look to the OPTION Act as the example of what real reform looks like.

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 is very simple. It would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses of the Congressional Research Service, or CRS, back to fiscal year 2012 levels this year. Mr. Chairman, we have to look at savings at every line of these appropriations bills, no matter how big or small they may be. This amendment would take almost a million dollars and transfer that money to the spending reduction account. Also, keep in mind that I'm not asking to cut anything. I'm not making any single cut in funding from CRS. I'm only asking that they receive the same amount of money that they are getting this very year. We are in far worse shape than we were 1 year ago economically. Our national debt has hit almost $16 trillion, yet this Congress continues to blow through trillions of dollars with a reckless disregard for our economic reality. Mr. Chairman, I think CRS should have to pitch in and do their part by spending no more money next year than they're spending this year. It's called tightening the belt. Families have to do it, States have to do it, and branches of the Federal Government should also have to do it. We have to stop spending money that we do not have. I ask that my colleagues support this amendment as a step in the right direction for doing just that. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Well, my good friend from California said this is a decrease in spending, but it's not. It's just keeping the spending at the current levels for 1 more year. It makes sense. We are in hard economic times as a nation. We're broke as a nation. We're spending more money than we're bringing in. Members on both sides of the aisle certainly use the Congressional Research Service, and it's a good service for all of us. But we all have to tighten our belts. I hear Members on both sides talk about we need to make cuts, we need to balance our budget, we need to start dealing with the deficit and debt. I agree, we do. This reminds me of some mantra that went on back during our founding period with a slightly different twist. Back in those days of founding our Nation, they were talking about taxes. The mantra was, Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax that fellow behind the tree. Well, today it's, Don't cut me, don't cut thee, cut the fellow behind the tree. But there's not a person behind the tree. We all need to tighten our belts. This is just a very small, not cut, but a stabilization of spending for the CRS. So I encourage my colleagues to make one small little, itty-bitty step towards financial reality and financial sanity by saying let's just freeze the spending level for CRS for 1 year. 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 says that no funds in the underlying bill may be used to restrict access to the Screening Partnership Program, SPP program, of the Transportation Security Administration, TSA. SPP is a pilot program that the Federal Government is using to test privatization at certain airports. Currently, there are 16 airports that participate in this program, and a 17th airport has just recently been approved. These airports have received overwhelmingly positive reports and feedback from passengers as well as security personnel alike. In fact, last night I was talking with my good friend, Congressman Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming, and she was telling me about the success of the Jackson Hole Airport in Jackson, Wyoming, which is part of the SPP program. Almost three-fourths of all travelers in the State of Wyoming fly in and out of Jackson Hole, and Congresswoman Lummis said that the screening process there is top of the line. They've not had any problems whatsoever. You see, airports can still be effective and do their due diligence without the Federal Government directing, dictating how their security should be set up. I understand that the language in the underlying bill attempts to make access to SPP easier. However, the purpose of my amendment is to ensure that we don't ever use funds to restrict participation in the program, and here's an example of why. Kansas City Airport is another airport that has been testing out privatization. They've been part of SPP for a few years and have received stellar customer reviews, with no reported problems. Recently, though, the private contractor handling the security reapplied for the SPP program, but the administration denied their application. Even worse, the administration selected a different bidder that has no experience whatsoever in airport security. I don't understand this. This makes no sense, and it's a perfect example of how the administration will shut out good private contractors in order to ensure a lasting place in the Federal Government for the TSA. Mr. Chairman, the SPP program will not only spur our economy by creating good jobs in the private sector, but it will also relieve some of the burdensome costs that the TSA imposes on our Federal budget. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment so that we can take privatization of the TSA one step further. 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. My amendment eliminates all funding for the behavior detection officers and for the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques program, better known as the SPOT program. The SPOT program trains TSA behavior detection officers to monitor regular airline passengers for stress, fear, or deceptive behavior. The officers then are supposed to put any passengers who exhibit terrorist- like behaviors, such as stress, fear, and deceptive behavior, through a more rigorous screening process. This seems to be reasonable, but actually, Mr. Chairman, it is laughable. These agents go through very minimal training, and they are hardly qualified to delve into the psychology of a possible terrorist. This program was modeled after a very effective one used in Israel, but their agents go through a very extensive program of preparation for this line of work. Plus, they focus on a handful of airports in Israel as opposed to the hundreds that we have to worry about here in the United States. Moreover, almost any passenger having a bad day could be deemed a terrorist under the list of emotions that the agents are supposed to take note of. We've all stood in line and have seen the awkward, invasive pat-downs that many innocent passengers have to endure. Many of us have seen the crying children or elderly grandmas who suffer through these embarrassing protocols as we try to get through security. It has got to stop. I would also like to point out that the SPOT program costs us a quarter of a billion dollars to operate annually, and it will require more than $1.2 billion over the next 5 years. We don't have that kind of money to spend on a program that just simply does not work. Believe me, it doesn't work. The Government Accountability Office has found that 17 known terrorists, all who are on the No Fly List, have been able to board airplanes over 24 different times from eight different SPOT-certified airports. There are 17 terrorists on the No Fly List who have boarded airplanes at least 24 times at eight different SPOT-certified airports. In fact, the GAO also found that not one terrorist--not one--has been caught by the SPOT program. The program has not been scientifically validated anyway. Mr. Chairman, that alone is enough to convince me that the SPOT program is a waste of our time, a waste of our money, and is flat out not working. So let's get rid of it and, instead, invest our resources in intelligence and in technologies that help us catch terrorists before they ever step foot inside an airport in the first place. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. To begin with, I yield myself as much time as I may consume, and then I'll yield to my good friend, Mo Brooks from Alabama. But prior to yielding to Mr. Brooks, I want to say that my good friend, who I have utmost admiration and good feelings towards personally, my friend from Oregon is just factually incorrect. If this motion to instruct is indeed put into the conference report that, hopefully, they will get out, there will continue to be new investment in our infrastructure. The difference will be that we just won't create any more debt. And the argument I got from my colleague on the other side just shows the very drastic difference in philosophy between my Democratic colleagues and me and many on our side, and that's that it seems to me that the philosophy of the Democratic party is that only government creates jobs. The government doesn't make any money. They just take money from those who are creating jobs and spend it on whatever government decides that they want to spend it on. We spent a tremendous amount of money, which is going to wind up being over $1 trillion in a stimulus package that our President gave us. And where are the jobs? He created some temporary jobs. Created even temporary infrastructure jobs, but our economy is no better. The American people are asking, where are the jobs? Where's the stronger economy? There is none. And there is none because the philosophy of my Democratic colleagues just simply does not work. Socialism has never worked under any socialist particular regime in the history of this Nation, and it's not going to work under the socialistic regime of Barack Obama and my Democratic colleagues. I believe in transportation. It's one of the few truly constitutional functions of the Federal Government under the original intent. In our Founding Fathers' time they called it a postal road system. But what I am against is creating more debt for my two grandchildren, who are 6 and 7. Their names are Tillman and Cile Surratt, and they live in Oconee County, Georgia. What we are doing here in this body and what we've been doing in the 5 years I've been here is creating more debt that they and their children and their grandchildren are going to have to pay. They're going to live at a lower standard than we do today. It's because of this philosophy of Big Government spending; it's because of a philosophy of government knows best for America; and it's a philosophy of government is going to take away from those who are producing and creating jobs and give it to government bureaucrats to try to tell us how to run our lives. It has to stop. America is broke, and we have to stop this deficit spending. Where are the jobs? We can create some part-time jobs. I'd like to see us have a transportation bill. I'd like to see us have a 10-year transportation bill based on highway trust fund spending--nothing else--and not going into debt any further. So the philosophy of my good friend from Oregon and his colleagues on the Democratic side is a philosophy of economic failure as a Nation, and we've got to stop it. I would now like to yield 10 minutes to my good friend from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we all know that our country is facing an unprecedented fiscal emergency. We're broke as a Nation. While a number of us believe that the Federal Government's spending must be limited from the very start, it's clear to most of us here that any spending that we do must be offset. We cannot continue to build debt for our children and our grandchildren. In most cases, when we wish to increase spending, we are presented with a very difficult choice: whether to increase taxes, as some would have us to do, or reduce spending in other areas of the Federal Government. But the case before us today, the Federal highway system, is different from most Federal programs. Much of the spending in the underlying bill is filtered through the highway trust fund, which was built on a unique principle of ``user pays.'' Unlike most government programs which rely on general tax revenues, the programs which provide for new roads and highway improvements are paid for by highway users through the 18.4 cents per gallon gas tax. It isn't a perfect system, but it was created with a built-in accountability measure in mind: that the highway trust fund may only give out in obligations the amount in which it takes in through gas tax revenues. Until recently, this principle worked relatively well. But increasing construction costs, stricter federally mandated fuel efficiency standards, and a reluctance to increase the gas tax--especially during an economic downturn--have led to a decrease in the highway trust fund's purchasing power. None of these problems should have been a surprise to Congress, Mr. Speaker, as many of them were direct results of actions taken by this body. Nevertheless, these obstacles should have led us to some sort of congressional action in order to keep the highway trust fund--and the Federal highway programs as a whole--solvent. So what did Congress do? Did we increase the gas tax? Did we reverse the fuel efficiency standards? Did we reorganize any of the programs or do anything to encourage the production of cheaper fuel here in the U.S.? No, absolutely not. When faced with the threat of bankrupting the highway trust fund in 2005, Congress did nothing to rein in spending or increase revenues. Instead, Congress passed the SAFETEA LU law, which was the biggest, most expensive transportation authorization in history. Not surprisingly, by 2009, the highway trust fund was broke. Since then, we've passed three separate bailouts of the highway trust fund totaling nearly $30 billion. Mr. Speaker, I fear that the bill which is currently in conference will only lead to more of the same of that deficit spending. My fear is supported by numbers from the Congressional Budget Office which show that for each of the next 2 years, there is a projected $8 to $9 billion gap between the likely revenues and the expected outlays within the highway trust fund. It is important to note, however, that these estimates are developed using current budgetary conditions. This means that changes could be made during the conference which would prevent this shortfall from happening again. One approach which has been embraced by many Members is to tie U.S. energy production to highway financing. On its face, this approach looks like a win-win solution to both drive down gas prices and allow for increased investment in transportation infrastructure. While I support language to authorize the Keystone pipeline and other domestic energy projects, I must caution my colleagues about combining such initiatives to pay for a transportation authorization. There are many regulatory hurdles that these projects must cross, as well as litigation, before they come to fruition. I don't agree with these burdens, but they are a reality. Even in the best case scenario, it will be years before we see any profits from Keystone or any energy development that many of us would like to see us undertake. Indeed, using potential energy production to pay for other priorities is not new in this body. In fact, the House has voted to allow development of the resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge more than 10 times since 1995. But as many of us know, policies that are passed here in the House, or even in both bodies, do not always take effect as intended. While I agree that our Nation's infrastructure needs significant help, we simply cannot allow ourselves to spend billions of dollars that we simply don't have based on the promise of potential, unrealized energy revenues. That's why I have brought this motion to the floor tonight. My motion to instruct would restore the inherent limits which were built into the highway trust fund originally. It would ask that the conferees only obligate funds which are equal to what the Congressional Budget Office projects that the government will take in via the Federal gas tax over the course of fiscal year 2013. If my language were added to the bill, it would return discipline to a broken program until either additional real revenue becomes available or policy changes are made which would relieve the pressure on the highway trust fund. We are in a fiscal crisis, Mr. Speaker. As a House Member, when I evaluate legislation, I ask myself four questions. The first, is it right? Is it moral? The second, is it constitutional according to the original intent of the Constitution? The third, is it needed? And the fourth, can we afford it? Given what the conferees are working with, I can't sign off on that last question. It is simply not affordable. We cannot continue to create more debt. And I'm not the only one who feels that way, Mr. Speaker. In fact, likewise, just 2 days ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce sent a letter to House Members earlier this week expressing its fear of an ``impending fiscal cliff.'' In part, the letter states that: America is accelerating toward a fiscal cliff while at the same time Congress and the President are ignoring a growing long-run fiscal imbalance. Mr. Speaker, it seems clear to me that passing the motion before us here today would be an important step towards reining in spending and allowing us to step back from the precipice on which we find ourselves, a precipice of total economic collapse of our Nation. Unfortunately, as with every other issue, the debate over transportation spending has become ``cuts for thee, but not for me.'' The time for such games has ended. My motion would attempt to rein in Federal spending and hold us to our honest limits for now. And if the best case scenario presents itself down the road, all the better. I urge my colleagues to support this motion, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. BROUN of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.