Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 30: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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

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. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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.

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

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

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.)

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 43 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Thursday, February 17, 2011, at 9 a.m.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 13 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until today, Wednesday, February 16, 2011, at 10 a.m. for morning-hour debate.

Offered By: Mr. Chaffetz

Amendment No. 28: Page 240, line 20, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $4,000,000)''.

Page 359, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a matter of policy, authorizing 99-year lease terms for tribes is a means of increasing tribal independence from the Bureau of Indian Affairs bureaucracy. Therefore, we have no objection to this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

As a matter of policy, authorizing 99-year lease terms for tribes is a means of increasing tribal independence from the Bureau of Indian Affairs bureaucracy. Therefore, we have no objection to this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.