Jason Chaffetz

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I would like to inquire of the remaining time. We have no additional speakers except myself.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume in order to say that we don't offer a proposal to privatize Social Security. We do not do the things that were just said on this floor. Nevertheless, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita). (Mr. ROKITA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the freshman gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield myself 3 minutes. Madam Chair, I am so glad that we are going through this process this year. I think this is a healthy part of what we do as the United States, what separates us from a lot of other countries. And I'm glad that we are actually doing this. This is my second term in Congress. So last Congress last year, we didn't even go through this process. I think this is healthy. I think we all care deeply, and we are very patriotic about this country, but I happen to have a vision that says that the proper role of government is somewhat limited and that there is a proper role for government, and that we need to adhere to that proper role. It's funny, sometimes I hear opposition to the Republican proposal or the Republican budget, and I hear that we're going to sacrifice this and we're going to cut all that. Let's also understand that we're still going to spend $3.5 trillion with a capital T. That's a lot of money. People often ask me, they say how much is $1 trillion? It's kind of a hard number to get your arms around, but if you were to spend $1 million a day, every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion, to $1 trillion. Well, we're $14 trillion in debt. We're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on that debt. It's on its way to $1 billion a day in just the interest on that debt, and we're going to have to deal with the fact that we've got to pay that debt. We've got to cut up the government credit card. We have spent far too much money. What I like about what we have proposed in the Republican budget is that we start to rein in the out-of-control spending; yet we still fulfill a lot of the obligations that we have to this country, particularly for seniors and others. We will still spend an exorbitant amount of money, but over the course of time, we will be on the proper trajectory to live within our means. I think that is one of the foundations of this country, the idea of personal responsibility, the idea that we have to live within our means, that we are self-sufficient. And we have to deal with the fact that in Congresses previous, in generations previous, they have racked up this debt. And we go through and blame each other for that. But the reality moving forward is we have to put ourselves on a trajectory to balance the budget and pay off the debt. And that, I think, is one of the great moral responsibilities that we have in the United States Congress, the adult conversation that we have. There are a lot of needs in this country, but we're broke, ladies and gentlemen. We're broke. And we have got to rein in the spending. And we have got to make the United States as competitive as we can possibly be. Because when we're competitive on the world stage--the United States of America is still the greatest country on the face of the planet--but if we're going to be the military and economic superpower, we have a responsibility to live within our means and to become self- sufficient. I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Chair.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this budget. At the end of the day, this is about jobs, it's about our economy, and it's about the people's money. You see, all too often Congress talks about its money, talks about the way it wants to spend the people's money. No. It's the people's money. It's not Congress's to just go and allocate and pull their money out of their wallets to hand to somebody else. What we have to recognize each and every time a decision is made about where and how to spend money is that they're pulling money out of people's pockets and handing it to somebody else. And right now we're on a trajectory where 25 cents--25 cents--out of every dollar spent in this country is spent by the Federal Government. Fundamentally that's wrong. We have to change the trajectory. We have to have systemic changes. And that's what I like about this budget. Because not only does it put us on a pathway to balance the budget but to actually pay off the debt. I ran for Congress because I was sick and tired of what was happening. I wanted to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. We have to recognize that our national debt just 48 months ago was $8.67 trillion. Yet with the Democrats in control of the House and the Senate, it rose to over $14 trillion, a rise of more than 60 percent in just 48 months. We can't continue to do that. What I like about this budget is that it's an adult conversation that says we're going to have to change the trajectory, everything from entitlement reform to the discretionary spending. This budget cuts $6.2 trillion in government spending over the next decade compared to the President's budget. It eliminates hundreds of duplicative programs and brings government spending to below 20 percent of the economy--its proper role, its proper level. We can no longer continue to borrow, tax, and spend our way. We have to reduce spending. We have to produce a responsible Federal budget. That's what this budget does. That's why I'm in support of it. And I urge the passage of this budget.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this rule. I think the American people deserve an opportunity to have their Representatives vote on the funding of NPR. Now, let's also make sure we keep this in context because really what this is ultimately going to do is talk about the funding of less than 5 percent of NPR. It's not as if this is going to go off the radio right away. I'm not here to debate the content or make some editorial comment about their editorial comment, but we have to deal with the fiscal reality of this country. Every time we turn around, nobody wants to cut anything. We're going to have to figure out in this country how to do more with less. The reality is we're $14 trillion in debt. We pay more than $600 million a day on interest on that debt. We can't be all things to all people. We have to understand the proper role of government. Every time we make a decision about spending, what we're talking about is, should we go into somebody's pocket, pull money out, and give it to somebody else? And in the case of our Federal Government now, we're also doing that, but we're also borrowing the money. We're borrowing the money. And so in the case of NPR, which has been wildly successful, as the gentlewoman properly accounted for, Mr. Speaker--their listenership is rising--which gives a lot of us the belief that, really, they should be moving towards a model where they can sustain themselves through their donations and other funding mechanisms rather than relying upon the taxpayers to fund them, because we don't have any money. We're broke. And so I'm proud of the fact that early in this Republican control of the House of Representatives that we're going to bring this up for a vote, let the will of this body take its course, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule so we can have that opportunity to vote.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is the only place that I know of that we talk about trillions of dollars, trillion with a ``T.'' How much is $1 trillion? It is a number so large it is hard to get your arms around it. But if you were to spend $1 million a day, $1 million every day, it would take you almost 3,000 years to get to $1 trillion. This Nation right now is more than $14 trillion in debt. The country is going to spend more than $3.5 trillion over 12 months. More than $220 billion was added to our debt just last month. Somehow, some way, this government has got to recognize that we are going to have to do more with less; that the proper role of government does not allow us to unilaterally use this, the voting card of the United States Congress, as the biggest credit card that has ever faced this planet. We have to do more with less. We have to be disciplined.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I am going to be voting in favor of this resolution. The United States military is the greatest fighting force on the face of the planet. I could not be more proud of our troops who have served our country with such valor and such vigor. This is the longest war in the history of the United States of America. And let there be no mistake, the global war on terror is real. It is very real. I reject the notion that polls should matter in any way, shape, or form in this debate. That is not how the United States operates. This is not how we decide whether or not we go to war or we bring our troops home. I reject the notion that bringing our troops home at some point, which I consider to be victory, is somehow a pathway or paving a pathway to another 9/11. I think that is offensive, and I think it is inaccurate. Now, in many ways we have had success over the course of the years. Let's understand that according to the National Intelligence Estimate, which has been printed in many newspapers, that the Taliban poses no clear and present danger to the current Afghan Government, nor do they pose a danger to the United States of America. Further, we have had our CIA Director state that there are less than 50 al-Qaeda in the entire boundaries of Afghanistan. I believe it should be the policy of the United States of America that if we send our troops to war, we go with everything we have. We do not hold back. A politically correct war is a lost war, and at the present time we are playing politics. We aren't going with everything we have. If we are serious about doing it, Mr. President, you go with everything. And until this President attends more funerals than he does rounds of golf, this person will be highly offended. We have to define the mission. The President of the United States has failed to define success in Afghanistan. We are participating in the business of nation building, and I reject that. We are propping up a government that is fundamentally corrupt, and we all know it. It will not get us to where we want to go. We must redefine the rules of engagement. Even when I was in Afghanistan visiting with General Petraeus, he admitted that we are using smaller caliber rounds. Again, we are trying to be more politically correct instead of actually protecting American lives. Let me also say again that terrorism is a global threat. We must use our forces around the world when there is a direct threat on the United States of America. That is not confined to just the boundaries of Afghanistan. It is happening globally, and it is real. We have to deal with the threats in Iran and not take our eye off the ball. Finally, I would say that our national debt is a clear and present danger to the United States of America, and we must pay attention to that. Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Aaron Nemelka, Carlos Aragon, Nigel Olsen, Matthew Wagstaff: Since I have been in office, these are the gentleman who have lost their lives in Afghanistan. I honor them. I thank them. And as I have talked to each of their parents, they want those rules of engagement changed, and they want to end this war in Afghanistan, with victory. With victory.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. May I ask the gentleman to yield me an additional 15 seconds?

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, before I continue, may I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, one of the great urgencies that we have in this country is to get our fiscal house in order. We're paying more than $600 million a day in interest on our debt. Our debt has now accumulated to something like $14 trillion; and when we have an opportunity, really an obligation to point out redundancies within our government, we have to take that obligation and act upon it. The United States Institute of Peace is clearly one of those opportunities where we cite redundancy and we say we don't need somebody competing, in essence, with the State Department. Yes, they do great work in many different areas. They have been able to raise literally millions and millions of dollars from grants but, also, more importantly, from the outside world; and this is an opportunity for us to actually scale this back and allow that transition to happen. Now, some will say, well, it is just another $40 million; that's not going to make a big enough dent in the debt. The reality is, we have to start small. We have to see small things add up over the course of time. These appropriations that have happened year after year after year really on autopilot have now cost the taxpayers in excess of $700 million. We're about to approach $1 billion, right in the shadows of the State Department. Their primary mission is to do what the United States Institute of Peace is also trying to do; and if they are able to add to the equation, then they surely, with the letters that they get from General Petraeus and the former Secretary of State, can go out and use that in a fund-raising mechanism to continue in that effort. But for us to go back into the taxpayers' wallet and pull money out and give it in favor of this particular institution, in contrast to what CATO and Heritage and all these other organizations that have been identified previously, is not fair, it's not right, and in this case, I would urge my colleagues to understand the redundancy that is going on here and say, please, this is an opportunity where we can truly make a cut. I appreciate the great work that the Representative from New York (Mr. Weiner) has done and the gentleman from Minnesota who has spoken to this. I concur with that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Reclaiming my time, I would state that it is the overarching goal of the United States of America in every form to achieve peace. I think we are a very peaceful Nation. I think to the President, the Congress, the State Department, the Department of Defense, the overall goal of the United States of America is to achieve peace; and if we have anybody who is trying to pursue anything other than peace, I would take issue with that.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. today.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CHAFFETZ

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