On the recordJuly 18, 2012
Like my colleague, Mr. McHenry, I also am rising because I do oppose this amendment, saying that the Department of Defense has to limit what they do and decide how they can recruit. And mainly, it's micromanaging. The biggest issue here is this approach is not going to save a dime in the long run because when recruitment goals aren't met--and that is a challenge--the military pays out nearly $1 billion a year in extra recruitment bonuses to maintain needed recruitment numbers. We're talking, of course, about the National Guard, who did have a 4-1 return on investment in motor sports. But we've got to be aware that we've got to recruit men and women where they are. We need the best men and women that we can in our military service. Of course, we owe all of those who are currently serving a great debt of gratitude, but I don't believe that we need to tell them how to best do their recruiting. I'm also a conservative, and I believe strongly in rooting out government waste, but that's not what this amendment does because in the long run we end up spending more money on recruitment. As my colleague said before, the House has twice voted down this amendment--it's the same vote--and I urge them to do so again. I yield back the balance of my time.
