Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is not a choice at all. It's a mandate. That's why we've got to end it. It's been a boondoggle for 30 years. It remains so. Let's vote for this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. If the Department wants to issue a rule, do a rule that actually targets the abuses rather than takes on a segment of the industry that may or may not be complicit in the kind of allegations that are there. This is overly broad. Let's have them go back to the drawing board and actually target abuses that occur, not a segment of the industry that's actually providing services. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Indiana for bringing this amendment forward. It was said earlier in this discussion that this is a war being waged by one Congressman on one organization. I don't think that that's accurate. I think that this is an effort by many Members of Congress, each of whom represents some 650,000 individuals, who do not want to see their tax dollars used to fund abortion. I think it's as simple as that. And when you see the videos that have been referenced earlier today about what went on in these clinics, and the misrepresentation that was there, and the out and out illegal behavior that was encouraged, that warrants some kind of action. And I think that's what this effort is about. So I think it behooves us to tone down the rhetoric and to actually decide what is this effort about. And it's about ensuring that individuals who do not want their tax dollars used to fund abortions may have that right to say so here in the House of Representatives on the floor here, and to vote to have their Members of Congress, their Representatives here vote in the way that they feel they should vote. That's what this effort's about. I commend the gentleman for bringing it forward. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I think any impact there will be is dwarfed by the impact of having a $1.5 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion debt and what happens to us as a country if we continue to run that kind of deficit and debt.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment reduces the Administration for Children and Families programs by $100 million, with reductions specifically targeting the Community Service Block Grant program. Under this amendment, this reduction would be transferred to the savings reduction account and would save the taxpayers $100 million. The agency has already spent $295 million on this program for fiscal year 2011. This amount of money is already out the door, and an authorization requiring $10 million to be spent on discretionary activities is already out; but this amendment would essentially zero out funding for grants for the remainder of the fiscal year. The program is administered through the Department of Health and Human Services. It provides Federal funds to States, territories, and tribes for distribution to local agencies to support a wide range of community-based activities. This program, however, has been flagged previously for its lack of accountability and oversight for the use of taxpayer dollars. In 2006, GAO was asked to review the administration of the Community Service Block Grant program. GAO indicated in a letter to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on February 7, 2006, that ``the Office of Community Services does not have the policies, procedures, and internal controls in place needed to carry out its monitoring efforts.'' Later, GAO writes: ``By sending staff without sufficient expertise in financial management on monitoring visits, the Office of Community Services failed to ensure that States spend Federal dollars appropriately.'' We have a projected deficit, as we've said many times today. It's $1.5 trillion this year alone. Sobering reports say that the national debt may soon exceed our annual GDP. Simply put, the Federal Government does not have the resources to fund every grant program, particularly one that has little accountability over how taxpayer dollars are spent. Beyond issues related to oversight, there have been concerns related to the effectiveness of taxpayer dollars spent on grants under this program. In a New York Times article published on February 5, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob Lew wrote about the CSBG program, stating: ``For the past 30 years, these grants have been allocated using a formula that does not consider how good a job the recipients are doing.'' In fact, presumably for this reason, President Obama cut funding for the Community Service Block Grant program by 50 percent in his FY 2012 budget request. Let me say that again: the President for the FY 2012 budget has cut this program in half, from $700 billion to $350 billion. I suppose it's likely because of these problems. The President defended this reduction by stating: ``CSBG provides funding for the important work of Community Action Agencies, but does not hold these agencies accountable for outcomes.'' On November 2, taxpayers sent a clear message to all of us here to spend money more wisely. As I mentioned, we are borrowing 40 cents for every dollar we spend. So when you have programs we are told by GAO and other groups that simply aren't using taxpayer dollars wisely, it behooves us to cut the funding. If we don't cut this funding, we will actually be funding this program at a greater level than the President is asking for. Let me repeat that: Unless we do this cut that we are talking about today, we will be funding for fiscal year 2011 this program at a greater level than the President is requesting for the following year. I think that we ought to move now, when we have a deficit of $1.5 trillion and a debt nearing or over $14 trillion, to save money where we can for the taxpayers.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to reduce the EPA's Science and Technology account by $64 million. It transfers the money into the Spending Reduction Account. Sixty-four million dollars is the level of the agency's astronomically expensive Science to Achieve Results, or STAR program, funded in fiscal year 2010. It's the intent of this amendment to zero out this costly program for the rest of the year, something that due to procedural limitations will be accomplished by supporting the cut to the account's top line for that purpose and the agency's operational plan that will come forth in 2011. According to the EPA, the STAR program is the agency's primary grants program for funding extramural research in environmental science and engineering. In a recent press release, the EPA boasts that the taxpayer-backed awards ``ensure the best science is being used to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land we build our communities on.'' What it doesn't mention is that these grants average 3 years and about $1 million. This program was funded at roughly $60 million last year, and the President requested $87 million for it in fiscal year 2011. I believe the committee used $50 million as an assumed funding level based on this CR for the rest of the year. Don't get me wrong. If we were printing money in a basement and if we had plenty of it, this may be something we'd want to spend some money on. I'm sure something good comes out of it, but we're not in that situation now. We have a debt of $14 trillion, and we have an annual deficit now of $1.5 trillion. When we're funding research like this, just out of an account to give to grad students, I think it's time to question whether or not this is the time we should do this or not. Not all of the grants that are issued, obviously, are used for good research. It's not all above reproach. For example, here are just a couple of the reports that we've received for the research that was done on these topics: Environmental Regulation and Productivity Benefits in the Paper Industry; Estimating Ownership and Use of Older Cars; Transforming Office Parks into Transit Villages; Public Opinion on Environment and Water Quality Management in the New York City Watershed; Ironically, there is a study on Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research. I thought that's what this program does. I've often talked about a lot of the earmarks we used to have that were just simply earmark incubators that begot more earmarks. It seems that some of the funding for studies like these are studies that beget further studies. If we can't move in now and say, hey, maybe we ought to slim back a little and save a little money for the taxpayer--remember, the money saved here will go into the spending reduction account and can be applied against this year's deficit--then we have to ask ourselves: How can we go back to our constituents and explain, ``Sorry, that $50 million was better spent giving out research dollars to study experimental programs to stimulate competitive research or to transform office parks into transit villages or for public opinion on the environment and water quality management in the New York City watershed or for environmental regulation and productivity benefits in the paper industry?'' Let's say to the taxpayer that we are serious here, that we are serious about this debt and this deficit. Let's vote for this amendment and put $50 million into the spending reduction account. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. I just want to say a few words about the process here. It is refreshing to so many of us to come to the House with an open rule. There are some Members who have been part of this body for 4 years now and have not been allowed the opportunity to offer one amendment on the floor because of the absence of open rules. So we are going to have a number of amendments offered here, and this is just a great process. I also want to commend the Appropriations Committee for the hard work that it took to get the level of savings that we are in the legislation and what a positive step, as was mentioned, it was to cut out the earmarks. There are no earmarks in this bill. That is a wonderful thing. We can actually talk more about the substance and less about just pet projects on the side. This amendment would reduce by $18.57 million the operations and maintenance defense-wide account. It would send the money to the spending reduction account. We are often told that when we offer amendments like this on the floor, it is not going to save any money. This one does. The money that is saved here will go to the spending reduction account. Last August, Secretary Gates ordered a review of all outside boards and commissions that provide advice and studies to the Defense Department with an eye toward eliminating unnecessary entities and cutting funding for the studies that they produce by 25 percent. According to CRS, the Department of Defense funds 65 boards and commissions at a cost of about $75 million. This amendment would achieve the approximate savings that Secretary Gates sought for FY 2011 that would equal $18.75 million. That is 25 percent of the $75 million over time. I certainly don't have any problems with the various panels from which the Defense Department seeks counsel, but I am sure there is some waste there. That is why Secretary Gates has targeted a 25 percent reduction. I realize the amount of savings in this amendment is relatively small compared to the overall defense budget, but I think the point has to be made here that the defense budget is not sacrosanct. We can't say if it is defense, it is all good; that there is no waste here, we can't cut any. So it is important to look for ways we can actually save. In fiscal year 2010, more than $1 trillion was spent on discretionary spending. The Department of Defense received more than $508 billion of that. Certainly in a Federal agency that requires the largest budget, this is the Federal agency that has the largest budget, there is going to be some waste and inefficiencies. This is a great place to start. This is a proposal that came from the Defense Secretary himself, one that wasn't included in the underlying bill, and one that will be addressed in the FY 2012 budget, according the documents released yesterday. In fact, according to the Defense Department, it intends to achieve a savings of more than a billion dollars in FY 2012 simply by eliminating internally produced reports and reducing funding for the types of studies that I'm talking about here. I applaud the Department's willingness to talk about cuts in its own budget. I urge my colleagues to adopt the same willingness here. If the Defense Department is willing to find savings, we ought to be able to do that here as well. We need to reduce this account which funds boards and commissions and the studies they produce by $18.75 million. Again, passing this amendment will reduce funding that will not impact the warfighter. It won't impact the war in Afghanistan or the war still going on in Iraq. This would simply signal that this body is willing to cut where we can cut without affecting the necessary protections that we have in the Department of Defense.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say it was asked which boards and commissions are there which this would cut. There are some 65 boards and commissions. Some are blue ribbon panels. The biggest three are the Defense Policy Board, the Defense Science Board, and the Defense Business Board. But let me say, again, what this amendment does is simply moves forward what the Secretary of Defense has already identified as savings that he would like to achieve. He has said that they want to cut 25 percent of the budget for these boards and commissions. The Secretary put this report out in August of last year, so it seems that he intended this for the FY 2011 cycle. That's what we're in right now. We're simply doing what, in my view, the Secretary of Defense has asked us to do or what he is going to carry through. If we can't do this on Defense or on other wasteful spending, where can we do it? This is a great place to start. We should get this done now because it's going to be tackled later on. Why not get a head start and do it in the FY 2011 budget. If we're trying to realize the savings that we're trying to realize, let's take these boards and commissions that the Secretary of Defense has already said we should cut by 25 percent and give them what he asked for.

Mr. FLAKE. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I just want to say, in closing, the gentleman is exactly right. Any dollar that we provide in this program has to be taken from a small business or an individual through taxes. That is money that they can't use to innovate on their own. And to actually go out and to respond to an RFP or to respond to needs of the Defense Department or to contract with them, they can do that without us having the specific program for them. So I urge support for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I won't take the 5 minutes. I just want to rise in strong support of this amendment. The gentleman is right; this was not asked for by the Department of Defense. And if we could save a half billion dollars, money that will not affect the war or the warfighter--but we see these kind of programs all the time. And it's more a way to generate economic activity than actually respond to any need. It assumes that the private sector out there, and small businesses aren't innovating on their own unless we ask them to do it. Unless we specifically direct them or provide money for them to do it, they won't do it at all. That's just a false assumption. So I commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to the floor. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It would simply reduce more than $34 million in funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center and transfer that money into the spending reduction account. In short, the amendment would zero out funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center, which has survived for the past 3 years by way of a very broken earmarking process. For many institutions, drugs are handled with a zero tolerance policy. I would submit that taxpayers should send a clear signal here that we have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of wasteful spending. There has been no better example for wasteful spending than the NDIC, an entity I have come to the floor many times within the past to criticize and to limit funding for. Not just me, but many other Members. A pet project that once belonged to a powerful Member of Congress, the NDIC was established in 1992 and has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars since then. In 2005, the White House OMB reported that the NDIC ``has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned mission.'' In 2006, a spokesman for the DOJ asserted that the resources of the NDIC should be ``realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives.'' And yet, here we are, 5 years later, funding the NDIC in spite of what will be 3 years of trillion-dollar deficits and a skyrocketing national debt. According to a CQ article from today, even the current administration's Deputy Attorney General James Cole said that many of the center's functions could be performed elsewhere. The President's budget request was released yesterday; and according to CQ, the NDIC is slated to receive a cut from its current level of funding from $44 million down to $25 million. I submit that that is $25 million too much. According to the fiscal year 2011 budget summary for the National Drug Control Strategy, we spent more than $15 billion on antidrug and drug-control efforts in fiscal year 2010. Even if you believe that the NDIC is effective and that it pulls its own weight, the anti-drug effort, like the budget of the Department of Defense, should not be immune from commonsense cuts that increase efficiency, and I can think of few things more efficient than closing down the NDIC once and for all. Let me just note, The Wall Street Journal said at one point: ``Conservatives have argued that the center is a waste of taxpayer money, and critics argue that it has never fulfilled its promise to provide high-quality analysis of drug networks.'' Again, an internal White House budget proposal aims to save nearly $17 million by downsizing NDIC. Clearly, clearly, I think everybody admits that there is no reason for this facility to exist anymore and to keep sucking millions and millions of dollars every year from the taxpayer. The White House, successive White Houses, Republican and Democrat alike, have said this is inefficient. It is not filling its mission. So it is up to Congress now, when we're running a $1.5 trillion deficit that stacks up against a $14 trillion debt, to look at programs like this and say, All right. Enough is enough. It's time that we close them down. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I say let's adopt this amendment. If we can't do this, where can we save money? If we can't close down a center that's received hundreds of millions of dollars that the White House, successive administrations, Republican and Democrat, have said it is duplicative, it is not fulfilling its mission; if we can't close these kind of things down, when are we going to save money? I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the committee for bringing this resolution forward. I rise in support of it. Madam Speaker, as Judge John Roll pored over the plans and designs for a new courthouse to be built in Yuma, Arizona, I am sure his intentions were not to cement a legacy in brick and mortar. To those who knew him, maintaining a reputation as a fair, ethical and intelligent jurist was legacy enough. One Tucson attorney said, ``One of the finest compliments you could give him was that you got a fair day in court.'' In fact, when the ability of the Arizona Federal court system to ensure such timely care and attention in all of its proceedings came into question by what he called a ``tsunami of felony cases,'' Judge Roll declared a judicial emergency for the District of Arizona. An Arizonan since childhood, a two-time graduate of the University of Arizona and a public servant within the State for nearly 40 years, Judge Roll was a tireless advocate. His mission would bring him to seek the assistance of his Representative, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Eventually, their efforts helped to secure approval of the funding for the Yuma courthouse. With the construction of this building set to begin this July, Judge Roll labored over the finishing touches. To him, the building represented a means to an end to better serve the people of Arizona. The Judge John M. Roll United States Courthouse will now represent and commemorate Judge Roll's legacy as a selfless public servant. Let me just say that I, along with some of my colleagues here, had the honor to attend his funeral. I heard stories of selfless service, of care and of what an incredible, wonderful jurist he was to represent the United States Government--to ensure that justice was served and for his service to the people of Arizona. There was such an outpouring of love and support for the family and, basically, just an honoring of the legacy of this great man. So I am glad we can do this small part to ensure that people remember what he has done for the State and for his country.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2, legislation repealing the massive health care law passed last year. Obamacare creates an unfunded mandate for states that took federal stimulus funds for Medicaid. This unfunded mandate will cost states like Arizona hundreds of millions of dollars. It also ties their hands from changing their Medicaid programs to prevent them from becoming unaffordable. States must be allowed to tailor their programs as they see fit in order to ensure their long-term sustainability. There are claims that repealing Obamacare would lead to massive deficits because it is supposedly paid for, but I would like to point out one item that was intended to raise revenues in order to help pay for the health care law that is already facing repeal. The healthcare bill includes a requirement that small businesses file a report every time they spend more than $600. This filing requirement went into effect at the end of last year and I am among a considerable bipartisan effort seeking to repeal it. Time and time again, we pass a law that is supposedly paid for . . . only to find out that the supposed pay-fors aren't worth the paper n which they were written. Sadly, when all of the budget gimmicks and fiscal hijinx are accounted for;provisions like these in Obamacare aren't paid for at all. In fact, the House Budget Committee Chairman recently noted that the true cost of Obamacare to taxpayers is more than $700 billion. Mr. Speaker, I agree that something must be done about the rising costs of health care, but Obamacare is not the answer. This is a bad law: we need to just start over and enact healthcare reforms that improve quality and control costs.