Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I simply disagree with that assessment. We'll have to agree to disagree, and I look forward to working with you.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I do want to indicate that I believe it was in March that the Department of Justice title III regulations issued a new ruling. So, we may disagree on what to do with this.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which this is moving forward. I appreciate specifically Chairman Rogers, Chairman Issa, and the ranking member. I stand in support of this amendment. I think FOIA is a very important principle we have in this, and this just strengthens that. I would also say, Madam Chair, that I was opposed to SOPA. I was adamantly opposed to this. But this bill in particular is desperately needed in this country. Cybersecurity is a very real threat, and this bill is something that is needed in this country. I think it is strong in its Fourth Amendment protections. I think it's appropriate for this Nation to do this. We need to make sure that we're smart in how we advance. There have been some much-needed amendments that were adopted. But again, the bill, as we see it moving forward, I think, will strengthen cybersecurity in this country, and I'm proud of the fact that Chairman Rogers is bringing this bill to the floor. I urge the support of this amendment and the underlying bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, I appreciate Chairman Issa and his foresight and leadership on this issue in driving this forward. This is so, so important to our country and our nation, and for the Federal Government to operate properly. Madam Speaker, I also want to thank and recognize the ranking member, Mr. Cummings, his unparalleled support and need and just patriotism for what's good for this Nation, working together in a bipartisan way. This is what I think the American people want, and this is what they get in this bill. I also want to share the fact that cybersecurity is a real threat. It's a threat to the mom who's got the computer sitting in there in the kitchen, and the kids are going in every direction, to the most secure infrastructure we have in our Federal Government. It is imperative that we get this right, because everything from a guy in a van down by the river to nation-states, our country is under a constant bombardment and attack, for our intellectual property, to trade secrets, to what's going on in this government. And while this is focused on what our government is doing and how it's organized, it updates the law so that we have the right provisions at the right place, and we're doing the right things. We have to be vigilant as a people. So this is focused, not--it doesn't give a new mandate. There's no new mandate upon the American people. There's no mandate upon businesses. What this does is get the structure for what should happen in the Federal Government right, and updating and doing things like continuous monitoring, vulnerability assessments and penetration tests that are done within the Federal Government. It requires a chief information security officer within these different agencies, and it focuses these efforts upon the Director of OMB. By really putting the focal point on the executive branch within the White House, you will get a much better response, because everything, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the Department of Defense and everywhere in between, we have to make sure that our systems are updated because the threat is constant, it is real, it is 24/7. And without these updates, without the constant monitoring, without these types of things, we will be doing a disservice to the American people, and we will not be living up to the commitment that we have to make sure that these networks are as secure as they possibly can be. This is something that will be with us, not just for the next 6 months, not just for the next year, but for the foreseeable future. And Madam Speaker, that's why I'm so enthusiastic about this bill. I appreciate the bipartisan nature in which it was done. And I certainly appreciate Chairman Issa and his leadership on this. I'm glad to be part of it. I would encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 3288.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hanna).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. You have to recognize how much money the Federal Government is spending here. We're going to spend in the range of about $3.5 trillion to $3.6 trillion in a 12-month period. Part of my rhetorical question here is: If that's not stimulative to the economy, why isn't it? What are we spending our money on if it's not intended to, in part, stimulate the economy? There are things that we have to do in terms of security and in providing for the FAA and for the Department of Defense, but we have to utilize those resources in a very wise way. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do appreciate the gentleman's comments, Mr. Chairman, the generosity and the approach that he took that, yes, we should debate the issues, but we don't need to attack the person. I think it is the right attitude, and I appreciate the comments about our chairman, Chairman Ryan. I remember what Speaker Boehner said at the beginning when I started. He said, We may disagree, but we shouldn't be disagreeable. So I appreciate the spirit in which we do this today. This is a contrast. There is a difference in opinion in the direction that we should go. I fundamentally don't believe that we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in this country. I think one of the problems and challenges in this Nation is that our government has overreached. It is spending too much money. It is borrowing too much money. And it is regulating too much. Is there a proper role for regulation? Absolutely, absolutely. And where it's a necessity, we need to prioritize it. We need to fix those things that aren't working. But what we have proposed, as the House Republicans, in our budget is a responsible, bold budget. It's also a realistic budget that, over the course of time, balances the books and pays off the debt. That is the imperative of our Nation. Because, as I sited earlier, we have to leave--we should leave this Nation better than the way we found it; and that means creating opportunity for this Nation to thrive. We need to remember that manufacturing is good in this Nation. We need to remember that, yes, we have to make investments, but to protect our Nation. I look at the President's budget, and the only thing I see that it cuts is defense; and the only thing it drills is your wallet. I don't believe that that is the direction of our Nation, and that is why we are debating this issue in contrast to the United States Senate which, for more than 1,050 days now, has not even brought a budget to the floor to debate. That is fundamentally and morally wrong. I am proud of the fact that this body is doing this. I encourage a ``no'' vote on what has been offered as the substitute, but I do encourage Members to vote for what passed out of the Budget Committee. I think it's responsible. I think it's bold. I think it's the right move for our Nation. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman if he needs it and has additional speakers.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time both sides have.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the moral obligations, I think, is not only to the current generation but to the older Americans who have poured their hearts and souls into this contract. They've lived with the assumption that certain things are going to be there. We have to live up to those obligations, but we also have to live up to the obligations that we have for our kids and our grandkids. One of my goals and objectives is to leave this country better than how I found it. One of the things that the House Republican budget does over the course of time is balance the budget and pay off the debt, which is something we have to do. So the fundamental question becomes, How do you do that? Now, I think where we have some common ground is that we want to broaden the base. The Republicans are suggesting that we lower the rates. Let people keep their own money and spend their own money. That is fundamentally what the United States of America is all about. The contrast here in what's being proposed is that they want to broaden the base--again, common ground--but they want to raise the rates, and that's where I think we have a fundamental challenge. We talk about what people have to pay, their fair share and whatnot. Yet let's look historically at what has happened in the United States of America. Historically, we have spent less than 20 percent of our gross domestic product. When the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency, they raised that up over 24 percent. That is more than 24 cents out of every dollar spent by the Federal Government in this country. I think that's immoral. I think that's wrong. We have an obligation--we have a duty--to live within our means and to provide opportunity and liberty for people to thrive. No matter where they are in life, the United States of America is about freedom, it's about liberty, it's about the opportunity to succeed--and that's the foundation of this country. That's what I'm committed to. That's what a responsible Federal Government does. The proper role of government is limited in its scope, and the proper role of government is a role of government. To me, that means the Department of Defense and other things to protect our Nation. That's where we should put our priorities, and that's why I think that this budget that the House Republicans have proposed is so responsible. I don't think we're just one good tax increase away from prosperity in this country, and that's, in part, why I stand in opposition to this amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to yield the gentleman some additional time. I know he has a number of speakers who are still left. I am happy to do that. So that is my intention as you allocate the rest of your time. For now, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I first want to commend Chairman Ryan of the Budget Committee for actually doing the job that we were elected to do. As Chairman Ryan pointed out, it has been more than 1,050 days since the United States Senate has actually decided to even address the budget. And yet I look at what they're doing. I can't figure out what they're doing. We are actually doing the job that we are supposed to be doing and doing it ahead of schedule, per the statute, per what this country should be doing, and I am proud of the fact that we are here debating a budget. I am also terribly disappointed in the President's budget. You know, it is interesting. As I routinely hear, Mr. Chairman, the Democrats talk about a balanced approach, the problem is the President has never, ever introduced a balanced budget, a budget that even over the course of time, at some point in time, would actually balance. It never balances. So for 4 years in a row, we're going to have a $1 trillion-plus deficit. Understand what that means for you and your kids. When I was first elected in 2008, this Nation was roughly in the $9 trillion debt range. Now we're going to be close to $16 trillion by the end of the year. Now keep in mind: How much is $1 trillion? That number is so large, it's hard to get your arms around it. If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you nearly 3,000 years to get to 1 trillion. We deficit-spend as a Nation $4 billion a day. My State of Utah, their entire budget, everything we do in our entire State is about $13 billion for the year. This Nation deficit-spends roughly $4 billion a day. We pay more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt, and yet the President proposes a budget that over the course of time will get to $26 trillion in debt in the next 10 years where we will see daily debt payments to service our debt. Those interest payments are going to be in a range closing in on $2 billion a day. We can't do this, ladies and gentlemen. There is a proper role of government. We're taking a responsible approach, but we have to cut spending. The reason I rise in support of this House budget is that over the course of time, we take that spending as a percentage of our gross domestic product and bring it down less than 20 percent. Under the President's vision, he is fine with spending in excess of 24 percent of GDP. What does that mean? Think of all the transactions, all of the financial transactions in this country, and he is comfortable spending 24 cents of every dollar that is spent in this Nation. That is fundamentally and morally wrong. But there is a choice. We have put together a plan. We are doing the heavy lifting. We're putting together a budget that's responsible. I wish we could balance the budget overnight. You can't. We've got to put ourselves on a glide path. There is a proper goal of government. We have to achieve that. I believe that the House Republican budget is bold and realistic. Mr. Chair, I thank the chairman for his great work.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this budget. I am proud of the fact that we are actually debating a budget; for you see, you look over to the other body, you look to the United States Senate, and you'll see it's been more than 1,050 days, an exceptional amount of time--years, in fact--since the United States Senate has actually discussed a budget. And here we are debating a budget. There's a contrast in vision. There's a contrast in priorities, but we're debating this. On some issues, there is some common ground; but on other things, there is a divergence in our approach. This budget that's being presented here as an amendment raises taxes by more than $6 trillion. Mr. Chairman, let me put in context what $1 trillion is. If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. So what we have to have is a realization of the fiscal woes that we face ourselves. I didn't create this mess, but I am here to help clean it up. The reality is we cannot face tens of trillions of dollars in debt because there's a consequence of that. The consequence of this massive debt: rising interest rates, devaluation of the dollar. There's so many things. Inflation as you throw more money into the marketplace. Imagine what this world would be like if we didn't have what will be, at the end of this year, nearly $16 trillion in debt. Right now we're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt. So, while I think there is common ground and appreciation of what needs to happen for our kids and our future and investments that we do need to make, what they would like to do in terms of infrastructure and roads and all of these types of things and our military, we're saddled with a $16 trillion debt. So we don't have that $600 million. We really don't get anything for that. We have to pay that as interest on the debt. That's where you see a contrast. What is being proposed here versus what the Republicans are offering in their budget, which has passed through the Budget Committee, is they would have to spend $5.3 trillion more over 10 years than what we have proposed. So I stand in opposition to this. I appreciate the passion and commitment they have to their agenda, but I do want to recognize, and I hope we can applaud on both sides of the aisle at least here in the House of Representatives, we're actually debating a budget. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2012, was favorably reported by voice vote by the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in November of last year. I'm proud to be one of the sponsors of this bill. There are 39 cosponsors of this bill, and, in particular, I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley) for his great and passionate work on this, Mr. Connolly, and Ms. Norton. There are a number of people on both sides of the aisle that have passionately worked on this issue. I'm proud to report, Mr. Speaker, that this is very bipartisan in its nature. I also want to thank our chairman, Chairman Issa, who was very instrumental in passing it out of committee to the floor, as well as Ranking Member Cummings and certainly our majority leader, Mr. Cantor, for allowing and encouraging this bill to come to the floor. So I appreciate the bipartisan nature. These are the types of things that we should be doing as a body to make sure that we're improving the process and streamlining the disposal of real property that happens in this country. Most are somewhat amazed to understand that our Federal Government has roughly 900,000 buildings and structures under its ownership. The GAO in 2011 estimated that the Federal Government holds 45,000 underutilized properties that cost nearly $1.7 billion annually in order to operate. And, again, these are underutilized. In fact, more recently, OMB Controller Daniel Werfel testified before a Senate subcommittee that the government controls 14,000 excess and 76,000 underutilized buildings and structures. That's going to happen when you consume and have so many Federal buildings. We have to make sure that we, as a government, are also streamlining and moving forward with the disposal of these properties when they become something that is not as frequently used. The Federal Government has accumulated excess properties because the disposal process is, in many ways, flawed. In 2003 and in 2011, the GAO designated Federal real property management as a high-risk area to the Federal Government. Thus, I think, as an independent group, going out, looking and assessing the situation, have come to the conclusion that we as the Federal Government believe this is a high-risk area that costs well over $1 billion a year, is starting to approach $2 billion a year and that it certainly is in need of some restructuring. So the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act would streamline the disposal of high-valued properties while also overhauling the existing disposal process. The bill creates a 5-year pilot program that would expedite the disposal of Federal properties with the goal of maximizing profit. Ninety-eight percent of the proceeds under the pilot would be directed to the United States Treasury General Fund, and 2 percent would be authorized for use by homeless assistance providers, as has been the history of this government in the past. The bill also permanently streamlines the existing disposal process by reducing administrative overhead, creating new agency incentives, and requiring greater transparency and accountability from the federal agencies. Again, this bill is bipartisan; it will direct revenue to the United States Treasury; it reduces operating and maintenance budgets; and it's presented in a bipartisan way. I would encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. The nature and the approach that we're taking here, I think, is just good government. It's smarter, more streamlined, more efficient, and moves the ball in the right direction. House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Washington, DC, March 20, 2012. Hon. Darrell E. Issa, Chairman, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing with respect to the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in matters being considered in H.R. 665, the Excess Federal Building and Property Disposal Act of 2011, which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Our Committee recognizes the desire of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to move H.R. 665 expeditiously. Therefore, while we have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of provisions in the bill related to public buildings and improved grounds of the United States and waivers of certain no-cost conveyances, including those related to aviation and highways, I do not object to bringing the legislation to the floor without action by this Committee. This, of course, is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation or my decision to forego any referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference. I would appreciate it if you would include a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of the bill by the House. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, John L. Mica, Chairman.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 665) to establish a pilot program for the expedited disposal of Federal real property, as amended.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers. I just want to simply thank the gentleman from Illinois. He's truly one who will stand on principle and work on both sides of the aisle, and for that we're very grateful and appreciative. This is what we are supposed to be doing, working in a bipartisan way. H.R. 665, as amended, is a good bill. It's good government, it's something we should do, and I would urge all of my colleagues to support it. I appreciate all the support from our leadership in making this point happen. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. For 4 consecutive years, President Obama has introduced a budget with a $1 trillion deficit--4 years in a row. This has never happened in our Nation's history. Well, how much is $1 trillion? If you spent $1 million a day every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. No longer can we do this. We're paying more than $733 million a day in interest on our national debt. We deficit spend something like $4 billion a day. Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot sustain the spending that we have. Our Nation is going bankrupt. It is imperative that this Congress get a grip on its fiscal future and put forward a budget that is responsible and over the course of time will actually balance our books and pay off the national debt.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Speaker, earlier it was referenced that there was another study showing that the compensation was 26 percent lower than the private sector. I would point out that that did not include compensation for benefits. Certainly when you look at someone's total compensation plan, you have to look at the benefits they are achieving. I would also point out that in the CBO study on pages 10 and 11, the total compensation is actually more askew for the lower-educated people. People who earned high school diplomas or less are getting 36 percent more than they would in the private sector. It's actually the higher end, people with professional degrees or doctorates who are actually being undercompensated, at least according to this study. And they only account for about 7 percent of our workforce. So if you look at the bulk of our workforce, some roughly 93 percent, you're going to see a double digit percentage increase versus the private sector. This is not an attack on our Federal workforce. Be grateful that you have a job. What we have to understand is that it's the taxpayers' money, and we have to be frugal with it.