Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Routinely, the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, has made the allegation that the President has offered a balanced plan. I would argue that he has offered neither. The President has never introduced a balanced plan. He's never had anything that's in balance. In fact, the budget that he submitted never balances. In fact, it doubles and then triples the debt. It went before the United States Senate, and 97-0 that budget was rejected, rejected by the United States Senate. So to suggest that he's offered something in balance is not true. The second part of this, he has not introduced a plan to deal with this crisis that we're in. There is no piece of paper. There's lots of speeches. There are lots of things like going out and doing press conferences. But we need a solution. What cut, cap, and balance does is it not only solves the short-term problem--it starts to put us in the right pathway--but it actually sends it to the States. And, ladies and gentlemen, what should we be afraid of? All we're asking to do is put forward a balanced budget amendment and send it to the State with a very high threshold, where three out of four States would have to ratify it in order for it to become an amendment to the Constitution.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. We keep spending money that we don't have. Every time we look at a decision, we have to understand we're asking to pull money out of somebody's pocket and give it to somebody else. Those days are gone. I came to Washington, D.C., to change the way we do business. Cut, cap, and balance will do that. We need a balanced budget amendment. The choice is clear: Are you in favor of a balanced budget or not? That's what's before us today, and that's the direction this country needs to go to get its fiscal house in order.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. A short time ago, the President issued an administration policy statement saying that he would veto Cut, Cap, and Balance. I appreciate the President's offering a moment of clarity. He said: ``Instead of pursuing an empty political statement and unrealistic policy goals, it is necessary to move beyond politics as usual and find bipartisan common ground.'' All we ask is that we balance our budget. For the President to suggest that balancing our budget is not common ground does provide clarity. This President has no plan to balance our budget. The budget that he submitted never balances. In fact, it doubles and triples the debt. We're asking that if the President wants to raise the debt ceiling, we must solve the underlying problem; and the underlying problem is we're borrowing, taxing, and spending too much money in this country. The President says, ``passing a balanced budget amendment that, in the years ahead, will likely leave the Nation unable to meet its core commitment of ensuring dignity in retirement.'' Mr. President, if we don't balance this budget, if we don't take care of our debt, if we don't pay off our debts, this country will be bankrupt. We're spending and borrowing too much money. We can no longer borrow 40 cents out of every dollar in this country. That's why we must pass Cut, Cap, and Balance. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I would hope this body would take this amendment with the same pace we did the mohair subsidies, but perhaps not. This amendment seeks to eliminate the cotton and peanut storage payments that we have been making. I would point out to my colleagues that President Obama recommended terminating this program in his fiscal 2012 budget. No other agriculture commodities receive this type of assistance. I would like to read a paragraph that's found on the WhiteHouse.gov Web site: The credits allow producers to store their cotton and peanuts at the government's cost until prices rise. Therefore, storage credits have a negative impact on the amount of commodities on the market. Because storage is covered by the government, producers may store their commodities for longer than necessary. There is no reason the government should be paying for the storage of cotton or peanuts, particularly since it does not provide this assistance for any other commodities. I happen to concur with the President on this. I hope my colleagues would find this to be a commonsense amendment to say we should not be specifying winners and losers. In this particular case, we're going to offer a storage credit for just cotton and just peanuts. It's something that I think should be eliminated. I would hope the body would concur. I would hope we would understand we're going to have to make some changes in the way we do things. This is one instance where I actually agree with the President. I'm proud to stand in support of that and would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment to limit the subsidies for mohair. Mohair is something that back in World War II we needed for our military uniforms. The problem is we haven't used mohair in our military uniforms since the Korean war, and yet the subsidies still continue. So this is a commonsense amendment to simply limit this. This is roughly $1 million a year. This is something that Congresses previously had eliminated. It crept back in. And this limitation amendment that I would offer, I would urge my colleagues to vote for. My understanding is there's no opposition on either side of the aisle. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. I will be brief, Madam Chair. I recognize the spirit in which you are doing this, and I appreciate the process and the back-and-forth. I did want to say for the record, I would join with the gentlewoman from Texas, and I have advocated for a long time that we pull out of Afghanistan and that we put that towards deficit reduction. But I also think we have to bring back discretionary spending even further. And I would like to mention to this body that really what happens with the so-called Ryan budget, the budget that this House passed, is that sets ceilings but it doesn't set floors, and I believe that one of the greatest threats in security to our future is the out-of-control debt and deficit that this country is encompassing. Let's also remember that we spend in the neighborhood of $40 billion on U.S. aid. We haven't been able to take care of our own pocketbooks in our own country, and so it's very difficult to justify not only a very healthy and robust USAID budget--by the way, having conducted oversight is not necessarily accountable. You can't go back and actually look at the accounting and see where all this money is flowing and what it's doing. But let's also remember that then we still have tens of billions of dollars to help people across the world. We have 149 countries in this world that are getting USAID money. They're getting aid from the United States of America through various programs. So, again, I would just want to briefly say I do think we can do better. I think we have to do better. The out-of-control spending in the past puts us in a perilous position where we spend $600 million a day just in interest on our debt. And so when I look at $1.8 billion in reduction and I look at the fact that our interest payment is $600 million a day, the best thing we could probably do for the world and certainly for ourselves is to get that deficit under control. We could do a lot more good in this world if we were to take care of our own financial pocketbooks, and we have not yet done that. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me. I appreciate the spirit of this body allowing me to add this extra comment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, this amendment deals with three different services within the Department of Agriculture. The idea and the goal of the situation here is that perhaps they could take a reduction in funding, not totally zero them out, and really look at these duplicative programs as being something that can be ultimately unified over the course of time. My amendment simply drives down the cost of these, and the hope and desire is that they will somehow unify to do and accomplish what these duplicative services are. This relates to the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, and the National Agriculture Statistics Service. Now, the one other one that I would also point out that is funded is the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, where we are not suggesting a reduction in the amount. But the overall goal here is to reduce the amount of the expenditure here 50 percent from 2011 and 43 percent from the current bill. I think this is common sense. We have to make difficult decisions. We recognize the value the Department of Agriculture brings. A lot of people rely on these types of statistics and information that is needed so that we can make sure that we have the very best Department of Agriculture that we can. But in these tough and difficult economic times, it is imperative that we make difficult decisions. And sometimes that means we are looking at duplicative programs, maybe scaling those back a little bit, and refocusing the mission so that they can actually do what matters most and prioritize their own mission. So we think it is the financially responsible thing to do. I would urge my colleagues to look closely at this. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. This is a defining moment for us as a people. This is a defining moment for this body. This is a defining moment for the United States Constitution. With the civil war in North Africa, there is no clear and present danger to the United States of America. Therefore, in acts of war, the President has a constitutional duty and obligation to come to the Congress to seek approval. For the President to suggest that he got approval from the United Nations is offensive, and it's wrong. No, Mr. President. Authorization to go to war comes from the American people, and it comes from the United States Congress. We must stand tall and true to the Constitution. We have no choice but to vote on this action. This is a defining moment. What is absent in all this discussion, I'd point out to my colleagues, is I see no resolution to go to war. I don't see a resolution that says this is what we should be doing. Please vote in favor of this amendment. Stand true and tall for the Constitution. This is a defining moment. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I rise in support of this amendment. I do believe we should defund the United States Institute of Peace. In contrary to the comments from the gentleman from California, I believe every department, every agency in the United States of America stands for and fights for peace. We don't have to have some separate organization that is just built on peace. No. It is the Department of Defense. It is the State Department. In fact, it is every agency within the United States of America that fights for peace. That's what our country stands for. We don't need a separate organization. We have spent over $700 million on this think tank that, while their intentions are good, quite frankly we can't afford and we don't need. It is the primary mission of the State Department and the Department of Defense to achieve the peace. It's not something we dole off to some separate agency in a fancy building kitty-corner to the State Department. And if the State Department and the Department of Defense aren't fighting for peace, then maybe that's a discussion we should have. But it is not the sole and only agency that fights for peace. We all fight for peace. And I encourage my Members to support this amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I appreciate Mr. Welch for doing this in a bipartisan way. This amendment does a couple of basic things: one, it says we are going to withdraw our troops. It's trying to bring our troops home. Nobody should be disappointed in that. That in many ways is victory. But, number two, it does give the President and the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to conduct counterterrorism activities. The reality in today's world is that terrorism is real. There are people that want to kill and destroy the United States of America. And the death of Osama bin Laden, unfortunately, has not put an end to that. In many ways, it is a global war on terror. We've had 10 years of great success; and what this amendment does, in my opinion, is recognize the success that our troops have had over the last 10 years, the longest war in the history of the United States of America. Unfortunately, terrorism is not confined to the boundaries of just Afghanistan. We have to have the very best intelligence, both human and electronic. And when we have intelligence that shows that there is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, our special forces need to take out that threat. That requires deadly force. But that does not necessarily require a hundred thousand of our men and women serving in Afghanistan in what I believe has expanded into mission creep that is just allowing people to participate in nation building. I feel for the people of Afghanistan. They have lived for more than 30 years in war. It is a difficult, difficult situation. But we have the very best fighting force in the world. If we're going to use those men and women and that fighting force in the right way, then we're going to have to deal with it differently. We should be proud of the fact that bringing our troops home is not putting our tail between our legs. It is victory. It is success. And we will continue to fight the fight. But it's global in nature. It's time to bring our troops home. Give the President and the Secretary the flexibility to take out the threat as it arrives in Afghanistan, and that's why I think this amendment is so important. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, we need to understand that we don't need to treat Afghanistan any different than we do the rest of the world. The reality is we have the very best fighting force in the world. We have been highly successful, but let's understand that bringing our troops home is something we should all be proud of. What we are failing to do right now, what this administration is failing to do--nobody has ever defined success, nobody has ever defined success. Let's bring our troops home. We are doing this in a bipartisan way. It's a reasonable and balanced approach to say, in counterterrorism, let's fight the terrorism that's out there, but let's also bring our troops home. May God bless the troops, and may God bless the United States of America. I appreciate the opportunity to present this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, the United States of America is the greatest country on the face of the planet. We have overcome challenge after challenge for hundreds of years. What makes America great is that entrepreneurial spirit, that can-do attitude, that idea that was inspired in the Constitution. See, I believe that the Constitution is an inspired, sacred document. But if we are going to continue to maintain our being the world's economic and military superpower, we're going to have to change the trajectory in which we are doing business. Taxing, spending, borrowing money--that is not the pathway to prosperity. The American Dream is built upon the ideal that people need to take care of themselves. There is a proper role of government. And what we truly need in this country is fiscal discipline, limited government, accountability, and a strong national defense. The Republican budget that has been put forward puts us on that trajectory, to retain and regain that fiscal sanity that we so desperately need in this country. Not only does our budget balance over the course of time, but it actually pays off the debt. And that, I think and I believe, is what we should be doing and what this budget that is put forth by the Budget Committee on the Republican side of the aisle truly does. We have a moral obligation to leave this country better than how we found it. And if we are going to truly drive jobs and the economy forward, we are going to have to recognize that we need to empower the individual. We need to empower the entrepreneur so that they can be the very best they can in a very competitive global climate. So, Madam Chair, I would urge the passage of the Republican budget, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative that has been put forward during this last half hour. I have enjoyed the debate. That's what makes this country great.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I understand the gentleman has additional speakers. I am happy to yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

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