Floor Statements

Thank you, Dr. DesJarlais. I appreciate your yielding.

In fact, Medicaid is going to destroy the Federal budget and create a total economic collapse of America if we don't change it from the present system. That's before ObamaCare even

takes place and markedly expands the States having to cover many more people, as my good friend from Maryland, Dr. Harris, was just explaining.

But there are alternatives. Hopefully, we can repeal ObamaCare and replace it with something that makes sense. But there is a solution today. And, in fact, the Republican Study Committee, several us in the Republican Study Committee--Jim Jordan, our chairman, Todd Rokita, Tim Huelskamp, and I--introduced the State Health Flexibility Act, which would freeze Medicaid spending at the current level and will block grant those funds to the States with no strings attached. Not only for Medicaid, but also for the State Child Health Insurance Program. And what the States would do is utilize those funds in any manner that they want to. If they want to do drug testing on Medicaid or SCHIP recipients, they can. They can organize the program any way they want to, which is going to be the solution because it freezes spending at current levels.

Absolutely.

Absolutely. In fact, the State Health Flexibility Act does that same thing, and the only growth is due to population in any State, so it does account for that change in the population of any given State.

But we have solutions. We have economically viable solutions that Republicans are submitting and, hopefully, we can get passed into law. But of course we've got to have a Senate that will even take up those kinds of bills, because the House has passed bill after bill after bill to create a stronger economy, to create jobs here in America, to lower the cost of gasoline, to develop all our energy resources.

We've got these bills that will solve the problems for Medicaid. Even my Patient Option Act is across-the-board health care reform. It repeals ObamaCare and replaces it with policy that makes health care cheaper for everyone, provides coverage for all Americans, and will save Medicare from going broke. And you add that, with the State Health Flexibility Act, it covers everybody.

We have solutions, but Harry Reid is an obstructionist. He's acting as a puppet for this President, and they throw in the trash can every bill we send over there.

We've got to create jobs. We've got to create a stronger economy. We have solutions to the health care problem.

All of us are physicians. All of us are physicians out here that are talking tonight. We've just been joined by one nonphysician, but she's been a strong supporter of the Doctors Caucus, and we've seen her here many times, Mrs. Lummis from Wyoming.

But we have solutions. The American people need to understand, Republicans have solutions, and we need to have the ability to pass those solutions into law so that we can have policy that's not going to break the bank. We're going into an economic collapse of America if we don't stop this inanity.

Before you go to Mrs. Lummis, I'd like to reclaim my time and just say this: Our State of Georgia is struggling. We have a balanced budget amendment to our State constitution. We're having a difficult time dealing with the extra cost, not only of Medicaid, but all these government mandates that are foisted upon our State from the Federal Government.

It has to stop. And the only way we're going to stop it is for we, the people, across this country to demand a different kind of governance from their Senators and Congressmen, and particularly from the President of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a dear friend, a selfless humanitarian, a loving son, brother, husband, and father--Mr. James Roman Cutshaw, better known as Roman.

In addition to his unwavering dedication to his family, Roman is also a lifelong Marine who served in World War II as an artilleryman. Roman's father taught him about how precious freedom and liberty are, as he served during World War I. He encouraged each of his sons to enlist as well. Not only did Roman make his father extremely proud, he also took away intangible life lessons about camaraderie, duty, and honor that are still with him today.

After the war Mr. Cutshaw continued his education and received a Bachelor of Science in Accounting. He later moved his family from Greeneville, Tennessee, to Athens, Georgia, where he became a successful businessman, father to four boys, and pillar of the community.

After his retirement, Mr. Cutshaw has continued an active and engaging lifestyle all the while maintaining a constant drive to better himself in every way possible. At age 77 he returned to school to obtain a second degree in Heating and Air Engineering and at age 86 he received a third degree in Theology. Roman maintains a garden large enough to feed several families in his community and has done countless free repairs on refrigerators, freezers, and air conditioners in the hot Georgia summers for those not fortunate enough to afford these costly services. He is truly an example of what it means to put others' needs before your own and to always trust in the Lord.

In 2011, Roman was diagnosed with cancer and is now in his hardest battle yet. Just last week, he turned 92 years old and days before was placed under the care of Hospice. Our thoughts and prayers are with him, but we know God has blessed and will continue to bless Roman. This is a man who has not been afraid to get his hands dirty or make sacrifices on behalf of his neighbors. He understands the value of a hard day's work, the loyalty it

takes to make 50 years of marriage work, and above all, the importance of prayer. He has touched many lives, especially those of his children, and he continues to be an inspiration to all who know him. Please join me in honoring Roman and wishing him a very blessed 92nd birthday.

Madam Speaker, more than 2 years ago, the President signed into law one of the most egregious attacks upon our freedom that this Nation has ever seen. Two years later, almost 60 percent of the American people still want to see ObamaCare repealed before the price of their health care goes up even more than it already has. Believe me, if we let this law take effect as planned, costs will skyrocket, and millions of Americans will lose their insurance altogether.

On top of restrictive mandates, higher taxes, Medicare cuts, and more government overreach, ObamaCare is flat out unconstitutional. We simply cannot force the American people to buy health insurance if they don't want it. I'm hopeful that tomorrow the Supreme Court will do its job and apply the Constitution as our Founding Fathers intended.

I look forward to repealing ObamaCare and getting started on real health care reform, as soon as the court reaches a decision.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

My amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses of the Office of Public and Indian Housing by $6.5 million. This is one of 13 offices which would receive increases for administrative expenses in the underlying bill.

Madam Chairman, we're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We're broke. We absolutely must stop spending money that we don't have. We're borrowing 40 cents or more on every dollar that the Federal Government expends. Raising the funding for the Office of Public and Indian Housing by $6.5 million while we're broke makes no fiscal sense to me.

This particular increase is among the highest for all the offices funded under this legislation. My amendment would simply freeze funding for this office for this next year. Passage of my amendment would bring this account back to this year's FY 2012 levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

My amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses for the Office of Community Planning and Development by $3.5 million.

This amendment, like the ones I presented last night and the one I just presented, would freeze the funding for these offices. I've heard my good friend from Iowa and my good friends on the other side talk about how the underlying bill has cut expenses for this whole underlying bill, but here in the House of Representatives, we've reduced our expenses by over 11 percent. It seems to me that it just makes fiscal sense to freeze funding for these offices in the underlying bill and not raise them.

We're in an economic emergency as a Nation. We are spending money that we simply do not have. We've got to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington, and I'm just asking a simple thing: let's freeze all of these offices at the current year's levels for 1 more year. Hopefully, next year we'll have policy put in place that will increase our economy and start creating jobs here in this Nation, but we're not doing that this year with this administration and the policies that we see in the other body on the other side of the Hill.

So let's just freeze the expenses of this office, and I'm proposing to freeze the expenses of virtually all the offices in this bill--most of them, anyway--and my amendment would bring the spending level that's proposed back to the current spending level of 2012.

When families and businesses get overextended, they don't continue to raise their spending levels, and we should not be raising this one either. My amendment would just freeze it at the current spending levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, my amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses of bureaucrats here in Washington at the Office of Housing by $5 million. That's absolutely correct.

This amendment, as well as all of my amendments, will not cut the programs. It will not cut the programs one iota. What this does is it reduces the salaries.

I just heard my good friend from Massachusetts talking about Federal bureaucrats getting raises. I have frozen the salaries of people who work for me, and I know many Members of Congress have, for the last 2 years. Why should we be giving Federal bureaucrats more money when the American people are not getting raises? It makes no sense to me, particularly as we are in an economic emergency. We are spending money we don't have. We have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington. Enough is enough. And raising this office, as well as all these offices, above the 2012 makes no economic sense to me whatsoever. Let's be fiscally responsible.

My good friend from Iowa, who I have the utmost respect for, has done a tremendous job in this bill, and I do appreciate the tremendous hard work that he and his committee has done. And I appreciate the $4 million that they've cut. But why raise the salaries of Federal bureaucrats?

My amendment would simply reduce the proposed funding back to the 2012 levels. I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, again I rise to propose an amendment just to freeze the salaries of this Office of Policy Development and Research by a mere $115,000.

Madam Chairman, I hear colleagues around here talking as if millions of dollars, tens of millions--hundreds of millions of dollars is nothing. Well,

most of my constituents at home in Georgia, most Americans think that $1 million is a lot of money, and I certainly think $1 million is a lot of money. But we have proposed, in this underlying bill, to raise the administrative expenses and salaries.

My good friend from Massachusetts, in the previous amendment, said we need to increase the salaries of the bureaucrats. I hope my good friend from Iowa (Mr. Latham), when he stood up on the last amendment saying that we weren't going to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats, is factual. I hope that that goes in the Record and it becomes true that we're not going to raise the salaries of Federal bureaucrats.

But they're proposing raising the administrative expenses and salaries in all of these offices, so I'm proposing just to freeze these expenses for 1 more year. Let's bring this account back down to this current year's levels of spending.

We cannot continue on this road.

Madam Chairman, I'm a medical doctor. As a medical doctor, part of my medical practice for many years has been involved in treating addictions, drug and alcohol addictions. In addiction medicine, we have a saying: When there's no denial, there's no addiction.

Congress and government have a spending addiction. It's a spending addiction, and there's a tremendous amount of denial here in this city--in all branches of government, actually. We need to face the fact: We're broke as a Nation. We've got to stop the outrageous spending.

I'm proposing just a mere $115,000 to freeze the expenses for this office and salaries for this office for 1 more year. I don't think that's too much for me to ask. I don't think that's too much for the American taxpayer, the hardworking American taxpayer to ask for us to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats here in Washington and freeze their expenses for 1 more year--not only for this amendment, but for the amendments that I've already presented and the ones that I will present. Let's freeze this spending for 1 more year, keep it at the FY 2012 levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, again I rise just to freeze the funding for salaries and office expenses for the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity by a meager $304,000. If we cannot cut out $115,000 or $304,000, what are we going to cut?

And as my friend from Massachusetts already said, actually, on two of my amendments, that it's to increase salaries of Federal bureaucrats. We've got to freeze the salaries of these bureaucrats. We've got to be fiscally responsible.

My amendment doesn't cut any program, doesn't cut any service, doesn't cut out any part of the necessary aspects of the Federal Government. All it does is it freezes the salaries and the expenses of this office, as the other amendments would do. It freezes it at this year's levels. Doesn't even go backwards, freezes it at this year's levels.

I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the underlying bill is suggesting that Congress allot an increase of $110 million in Federal funding for the Public Housing Capital Fund from this fiscal year, from fiscal year 2012.

My amendment would simply freeze funding at our current level and reduce the proposed funding by $110 million. We've got to stop spending. That's what all my efforts are geared towards. We can continue to perform the necessary functions of the Federal Government for those who need it. My amendment would just freeze the proposed increase in funding so that we keep it at this current year's level.

I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment, which would save over $110 million for the hardworking taxpayers of America.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chairman, I was going to introduce another amendment to this same program which would have been a decrease of just 10 percent of the increase. As I see things going on here today, we can't even cut out $115,000. Cutting out $11 million, I'm sure, is out of the question for my colleagues.

Madam Chair, we've just got to stop this outrageous spending here in Washington. So I'm not going to offer the other one. I would anticipate a point of order being brought against it, and rightfully so. So I'm not going to introduce that amendment.

I just ask my colleagues--and I hope that they hear from Americans all over this country--to stop the spending.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairwoman, the underlying bill increases funding for the public housing operating fund by over $500 million for fiscal year 2013.

My amendment would simply return the funding back to this year from the proposed levels. It's a $500 million increase at a time when our Nation is broke and American taxpayers are struggling to put food on their tables and looking for jobs.

It is imperative that we look for commonsense cuts wherever we can, and this is one of those. It's a lot of money, $500 million. Some would say it's a very small amount compared to the overall funding level proposed in this bill, but it's still $500 million. We just have to stop spending money that we don't have.

I urge my colleagues to support this very simple amendment that would save over $500 million, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the proposed funding for salaries and expenses for the Federal Maritime Commission by $900,000. This is not a cut. This is just to keep those salaries at what they are, to cap it at the 2012 levels. This is one of 13 offices that would receive increases for salaries or administrative expenses in the underlying bill.

I urge the support of my amendment, which would just freeze these salaries.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation is over $12 million higher than what the President's budget request was. Now, the President and I don't typically see eye to eye on most spending issues, but I am proud to support his requested level of funding for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation.

By supporting my amendment, why don't we show the American people that we are serious about our Nation's fiscal crisis and that both parties are capable of working together by setting the funding back to the President's requested funding level for the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation, which would save the American taxpayers over $12 million.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It would simply reduce the overall funding for the Office of Civil Rights within the Department of Transportation by $389,000.

This office is one of 13 in the underlying bill which are slated to receive increases for administrative expenses, despite the fiscal emergency that we're currently facing. The passage of this amendment would simply bring this account back to fiscal year 2012 levels.

I see my good friend from Texas, Sheila Jackson Lee. She knows we have fought together very hard for civil rights and civil liberties here in this House, in committee as well as on the floor, and believe very strongly that we need to protect our civil liberties and our civil rights. But the simple truth is that we're broke as a Nation, and this amendment would just simply keep funding at the current level instead of raising it. It would just turn it back--what's proposed in the underlying bill--to the current level of spending, but not reduce any functions of this office. It would not prohibit this office from doing any of its work. It would help, in a small way, to put us back into a more realistic fiscal state as a Nation because, Mr. Chairman, we just have to stop spending money that we don't have.

It's across the board. Every bureau, every office, every bit of the Federal Government needs to not have increases in their costs to the taxpayer, not have further borrowing of money that we just don't have. We've just got to stop spending money we don't have. This simple amendment keeps funding at our current level. That's all it does.

With that, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

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. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

I am not sure where my friend gets his mathematics from, but it's certainly not in reality.

I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close, and I am going to reserve the balance of my time until the time to close.

The gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I was just charged by this gentleman for hating America, and I challenge those words, and I ask that his words be taken down.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my request.

I yield to the gentleman for just one second.

Well, the gentleman did obviously direct remarks towards me. He pointed at me when he said: ``Why do you hate America so much?''

I love my country. I'm a U.S. marine. I'm trying to save my country from financial collapse. And that's what this is all about: stop spending money that we don't have.

We've got to finish the projects that we've already started, those that have already been approved and funded, before we start dipping into the general fund. It's estimated that we'll have a shortfall of $8 billion to $9 billion if this motion to instruct is not put in place.

We cannot afford the status quo. Their argument is to continue spending money, continue down a road that is going to cause a financial collapse of this Nation, in my opinion.

We need to create jobs. We need to get this country going economically. The policies of this administration have not worked. Policies that were put forward while Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of this House, with the stimulus bill and other big spending bills just have been essentially abject failures.

We cannot continue spending money that we don't have, and that's the reason I brought this motion forward, a motion to instruct the conferees to spend--continue transportation funding, continue building our transportation infrastructure, which I think is absolutely critical for economic development. But creating more debt is not the answer.

I resent being accused of hating America, and it angers me when I'm accused, personally accused by somebody that I thought was a friend. And I'm going to try very hard not to take this personally. I will not carry a grudge because I know, from my heart, we can disagree on issues, and I don't take it personally. But when he pointed at me and accused me of hating America, that's the reason I asked for his words to be taken down.

And what I ask my colleagues in this House to do is look in their hearts, because we absolutely have to change the way this House, this Congress, this government is doing business. We cannot continue spending ourselves to oblivion, and that's the way we're headed.

We need to create jobs. We need to create a strong economy. This has not been about tax increases or tax decreases, as has been accused tonight. This is about spending money that we have, and no more.

I encourage my colleagues to please vote for this motion to instruct, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 11 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 8, 2012, at 9 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the administrative salaries in the expense accounts in the underlying bill by just 3 percent, with the exception of the U.S. Coast Guard. It does not affect their expenses.

Our Nation is facing a total economic meltdown, and now more than ever it is apparent that we have to stop the outrageous spending that's going on here in Washington, D.C.

Over the last 2 years, House Members have voted to reduce their own administrative accounts--their Members' Representational Allowances--by more than 11 percent. Yet over that same period of time, many agencies have seen minimal reductions and, in some cases, even increases in their accounts.

For a good example, the TSA has only experienced a 3.5 percent cut over the last 2 years. I know many of my colleagues can agree that the TSA has not only been a complete and utter failure, but it also has been a colossal waste of taxpayer money, amounting to almost $60 billion.

Moreover, TSA personnel have not prevented the first terrorist attack from happening on American soil. In fact, at least 17 known terrorists have flown in the United States more than 24 different times. Yet this year, TSA screener personnel will receive increased funding for their compensation and benefits that totals more than $30 million above fiscal year 2012. This is totally unacceptable.

Another example I'd like to point to in the underlying bill is funding for a brand new agency called the Office of Biometric Identity Management. This new office will receive almost $200 million for their administrative salaries and expense accounts. Mr. Chairman, we need to be looking for areas where we can make cuts, not for opportunities to grow the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Now, certainly we can all agree that many of the offices, agencies, and individuals employed by the Department of Homeland Security are very deserving of the pay for which they receive but, Mr. Chairman, let's be realistic. If we are serious about reducing spending and reducing our deficit, we have to ask every agency to follow Congress' lead and take a small reduction in their administrative funding instead of asking for increases or trying to create new programs.

To be clear, a 3 percent reduction in these accounts would, in many cases, still result in less than a 10 percent reduction in funding from FY11 levels.

While this amount is small, it would pay dividends, huge dividends, resulting in nearly a half a billion dollars in savings in this bill alone.

It is long past time to get serious about spending, Mr. Chairman, and this amendment represents a balanced way to achieve significant savings. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to reduce spending in these accounts by just a mere 3 percent.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would completely eliminate funding for the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, and transfer that money into the deficit reduction account, saving taxpayers more than $5 billion.

The fact of the matter is very simple: TSA is not doing the job that it was created to do 10 years ago.

Originally, Congress intended for TSA to be an efficient, cutting- edge, intelligence-based agency responsible for protecting our airports and keeping passengers safe and secure. Today it has grown into one of the largest bureaucracies, bigger than the Departments of Labor, Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and State all combined--larger than all of those. They've had a 400 percent increase in staff over the past 10 years. A good portion of that has gone to headquarter employees making six figures on average.

What's worse is that American passengers aren't getting a good return on the nearly $60 billion that they've invested and spent on TSA. Reports indicate that more than 25,000 security

breaches have occurred at U.S. airports since 2001. Plus, we have evidence today that terrorists that are on the no-fly list have been still able to fly successfully aboard U.S. aircraft.

On top of this startling information, we've all seen the recent news headlines detailing the lack of professionalism, unreliable training, and even alleged corruption in the TSA ranks. Just about the only thing that TSA is good at is using its extensive power to violate American travelers' civil liberties. The stories range from embarrassing near- strip searches all the way to agents being hired without background checks. This is all evidence that TSA has veered dangerously off course from what it was intended to do.

I've repeatedly asked that we use our resources to focus on intelligence and technologies that can be more effective when it comes to catching terrorists--instead of patting down grandmas and children. I've demanded Administrator Pistole's resignation, and I've called for the privatization of TSA, along with some of my other colleagues here in the House. But we have still yet to see the necessary changes made to the TSA personnel or procedures that will ensure the safety and security of our airports and passengers.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to zero out funding for TSA forces Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to start all over again, start from scratch on a better, more effective, more progressive system for protecting our airlines without violating the person and liberties of our citizens.

I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.

In fact, he beat me to the microphone because I had intended to introduce the same amendment that he is presenting to us now.

I would like to say that this amendment of Mr. Flake's will keep funding the State and local programs that fall under FEMA set at those 2012 levels. It does not affect disaster assistance, only State and local programs.

Mr. Chairman, our Nation is broke and many Agencies, along with entire branches of the Federal Government, are experiencing drastic cutbacks. As it stands, the underlying bill increases funding for State and local FEMA programs by more than $400 million. While I'm well aware that FEMA provides necessary support for various grant training programs, I'm also a firm believer that these would be better regulated solely by State and local governments, not by the Federal Government.

Therefore, I feel it is more than reasonable to ask that, for right now, particularly while we are in such a crisis economically as a Nation, that we simply freeze funding for these programs at the 2012 level.

I congratulate my friend from Arizona (Mr. Flake) for his amendment and I heartily support it. I congratulate him on his longstanding efforts to bring the Federal Government into fiscal sanity. I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank my friend from North Carolina for yielding.

I would just remark about, Mr. Chairman, my friend from Washington State's remark. The countries in Europe are failing because they spend too much money. The government does not make jobs. It's the private sector that makes jobs. Republicans have passed bill after bill after bill here in the House that Harry Reid throws in the trash can as soon as they get over to the Senate.

We've passed bills here that would lower the cost of gasoline and oil. Natural gas, of course, is very low because of the amount that we have, and it's gone down because the marketplace works. We need to develop our God-given resources.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 10: None of the funds made available by this

Act may be used to hire new airport or airline employees for

whom the Transportation Security Administration has not

completed a full background check, in accordance with

applicable laws and regulations.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 11: None of the funds made available by this

Act may be used to carry out 100 percent cargo screening

goals or directives.

Offered By: Mr. Broun of Georgia

Amendment No. 12: None of the funds made available by this

Act may be used to limit

the scope of, or restrict access to, the Screening

Partnership Program of the Transportation Security

Administration.