Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas Roll Call reported on February 9, 2008, that the offices of a prominent lobbying firm had been raided by the FBI in November; Whereas The New York Times reported on February 10, 2009, that ``Federal prosecutors are looking into the possibility that a prominent lobbyist may have funneled bogus campaign contributions'' to Members of Congress; Whereas the Washington Post reported on February 14, 2009, that they ``examined contributions that were reported as being made by the firm's employees and consultants, and found several people who were not registered lobbyists and did not work for the lobbying firm''; Whereas Roll Call reported on February 11, 2009, that ``the defense- appropriations-focused lobbying shop that the FBI raided this November'' had in recent years ``spread millions of campaign contributions to lawmakers''; Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that the raided firm ``earned more than $14 million in lobbying revenue'' and ``specializes in obtaining earmarks in the defense budget for a long list of clients''; Whereas The Hill reported on February 10, 2009, that the 2008 clients of this firm had ``received $299 million worth of earmarks, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense''; Whereas CQ Today reported on February 19, 2009, that ``104 House Members got earmarks for projects sought by clients of the firm in the 2008 defense appropriations bills,'' and that 87 percent of this bipartisan group of Members received campaign contributions from the raided firm; Whereas CQ Today also reported that ``Members who took responsibility for the firm's earmarks in that spending bill have, since 2001, accepted a cumulative $1,815,138 in campaign contributions from the firm's political action committee and employees''; Whereas Roll Call reported on February 19, 2009, that a bipartisan group of four Members have made plans to divest themselves of campaign contributions received from the raided firm; Whereas Politico reported on February 12, 2009, that ``several sources said FBI agents have spent months laying the groundwork for their current investigation, including conducting research on earmarks and campaign contributions''; Whereas numerous press reports and editorials have alleged several cases of influence peddling between Members of Congress and outside interests seeking Federal funding; Whereas such reports and editorials reflect public distrust and have raised inquiries and criticism about the integrity of congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution; and Whereas the House of Representatives should respond to such claims and demonstrate integrity in its proceedings: Now, therefore, be it resolved that: (a) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, or a subcommittee of the committee designated by the committee and its members appointed by the chairman and ranking member, is instructed to investigate the relationship between earmark requests already made by Members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions. (b) The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall submit a report of its findings to the House of Representatives within 2 months after the date of adoption of this resolution.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. A lot has been said about the process here, and it needs to be said. To receive a bill that's over 1,000 pages at 11 o'clock last night and expect to vote on it with any knowledge of really what's in it today is simply absurd. So the process is wrong, but we need not lose sight of the broader picture here. We know enough about this legislation to know that it is bad legislation. First and foremost, the process is bad, but it's bad legislation. Now, some will say, well, you're just not a Keynesian, you don't believe in Keynesian economics. Keynes would be embarrassed by this legislation. If you believe in Keynesian economics, then certainly you would spend money in a way that stimulates the economy. I doubt that John Maynard Keynes would believe that $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts would be stimulative. All that it stimulates is more spending later. And the problem here is we're creating hundreds of new Federal programs that will continue in perpetuity, that will become a drag on the economy, not bolster it. Vote against this legislation.

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Oh, good. I thought I was going to be thrown under the train again. It's nice to have some agreement. But yes. This is simply that if you want to look at it in terms of is this a good idea to continue to subsidize like this? No. Is it stimulus? Certainly not. Certainly not. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I would simply state, I was just told that I'm going to strike all the funding for Amtrak. It makes it sound like we're taking all the funding for Amtrak. I should point out this takes none of the funding from Amtrak that we've approved in the regular appropriation cycle. I wish it did strike it. But it doesn't. As I mentioned, I think we have already provided in the last appropriation bill $1.3 billion in subsidy. This is, yes, $1.3 billion in subsidy. This is another $800 million in addition to that in the stimulus bill that is supposedly supposed to stimulate the economy. Let me say something else. Some may argue that we have to have Amtrak because so many people rely on it and that it's their only form of transportation. The actual statistics are that less than one-half of 1 percent of intercity travelers rely on Amtrak for travel, less than one-half of 1 percent. So this is not something that we have to say, oh, we've got to subsidize it again in the form of stimulus because so many people rely on it for transportation. I would say please adopt the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, every year, we have a debate, it seems, in the appropriations process about whether or not we should continue to subsidize Amtrak. We've been having this debate for 40 years. In 40 years, Amtrak has not turned a profit, and the Federal Government has had to subsidize it. Forty years. Yet here, after appropriating I think it was $1.3 billion in subsidy last year to keep Amtrak running, we're talking about providing another $800 million to Amtrak in this stimulus package. Now I would argue that this is a mistake for two reasons. First, how can we continue to provide this kind of subsidy for a program that continually does not work? Every time a passenger steps aboard an Amtrak train, the Federal taxpayer spends an average of $210 in subsidy for that passenger. Not every year, not every month, but every time a passenger steps on the train, he or she receives a subsidy on the average of $210 from the Federal Government. Yet here we say Amtrak needs more. We haven't done enough. We are not preparing it for privatization, or we haven't said, you have to bring your load factor up from less than 50 percent. I think it was some 47 percent last year. The airlines have a load factor around 80 percent. But no, we say, let's just give you more subsidy. Let's keep you going as you are so you don't have to reform. Some reforms supposedly have been put in place, but not reforms that have actually increased the load factor or made Amtrak run any better, but rather it simply put it in need of more subsidies. That is the first reason we ought to oppose it. We're simply continuing and making it longer, stretching the time from which we will see a profitable system. Second, regardless of the public good argument that you can make or not make in regard to this legislation for Amtrak, you ought to make the argument, or you should make, that this is not stimulus. How in the world is providing another $800 million to a program that continues to fail to turn a profit, a program that we have to continue to subsidize to the tune of $210 per passenger on the average, how can we even argue at all that this is stimulus, that this is somehow good for the economy, that this is the best use for this money, that it's better than letting the taxpayers actually keep it and spend it as they wish, it's better than any other purpose, that we should provide it to a system that is failing, and that is going to stimulate the economy. I would argue that if you're providing it to a program that continues to run deficits, requiring subsidies of over $1 billion a year, that should tell us, man, we ought to change something here. Maybe we ought to provide stimulus in some other way, some way that would actually stimulate the economy.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Keep in mind, Madam Speaker, that unless the date is changed, we are likely to get a report on the same day that we vote. More than 4,000 earmarks stuffed into an omnibus bill that we've had no ability to see.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I'm glad that this stimulus, and I think all of us are glad, most of us are glad, that this stimulus contains no earmarks from Congress. There's a lot of pork in it certainly, but not earmarks from Congress. What most people don't realize, however, is that next week we're slated to consider a huge omnibus bill to pass spending bills that didn't get passed in last year's session. That bill, that massive, massive, massive bill, is going to come to the floor with at least, and we have no idea how many, but at least 4,000 earmarks, 4,000 earmarks that have not been vetted by the whole House. Most of them have not even been vetted by the full Appropriations Committee. Some were passed by the subcommittees, but few of them, like the Labor-HHS bill with about, I think, 1,200 earmarks, wasn't even vetted by the full committee; yet it's going to be considered on the floor without the ability to challenge these individual earmarks. Nobody can stand and challenge individuals earmarks. There may be questions about campaign contributions that coincide with earmarks being put out. We can't challenge that. We can't do it because it simply wasn't allowed. Now, the other side will likely blame our side, well, you guys held up appropriations. We have not been in charge of this body for 2 years; yet we're going to be asked to consider legislation with thousands of earmarks that have not been vetted by the full House and where there is no ability by anyone in this Chamber to actually strike an individual earmark or to question spending. Now, the reason I bring it up now, this rule, section 2 reads: ``The Chair of the Committee on Appropriations shall insert in the Congressional Record not later than February 4, 2009, such material as he may deem explanatory of appropriations measures for the fiscal year 2009.'' What that is to do is to finally get the report of actually what earmarks will be in the bill. Well, guess what.

Mr. FLAKE. I see no reason to put the taxpayers on the hook to fund our campaigns. We shouldn't----

Mr. FLAKE. February 4 is the same day we will actually be considering this bill on the floor. I would yield to the chairman of the Rules Committee to see if she would consider amending the rule to allow the report to be filed on February 2. That is what our own rules say we should have, that space of time, at least 2 days for people to actually consider these earmarks. I yield to the gentlewoman of the Rules Committee.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. At a typical track meet you see the sprint, the 100-yard dash, or the 100-meter dash now, and then you see the victor take a victory lap. In this case, with the TARP, you see the reverse. We saw people claiming credit. We saw the victory lap back when they passed it the first time, and now we have those who are involved with this passage doing the 100- meter sprint out of the stadium as far away from this as possible. It was the last administration, they say. We had no role in it. I have never seen Congress so willing to give up its authority that I have seen here. Usually, we jealously guard our congressional, our constitutional prerogatives, the power of the purse. Yet with the TARP, we appropriated money, or authorized money, and said spend it on this, the Troubled Assets Relief Program. And then the administration took it and did something completely different, completely different, and then went on further and said we even have authority to bail out the auto industry with it. And we sit back in Congress and say, well, that seems to be okay with us. I mean, we are not potted plants here. We never have been and we shouldn't be, but in this case we have given away authority that should rest here with the Congress and simply going ahead and giving the other $350 billion seems to me folly. Right now with the stimulus bill nearing $1 trillion coming up, all of this money, all of this spending is somewhat fungible. We know that it is because the administration seems to be able to do whatever they want to with it, and Congress doesn't raise a peep. So we ought to look at this as $350 billion in spending, plus at least $825 billion to come, and say where does it end. At what point do we recognize that every dime we spend here is borrowed? At what point do we say there are better uses for money here? Wouldn't it be better to allow people to keep the money that they have earned, rather than send it to Washington, only to have some of it come back in a way that picks winners and losers in the economy.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady. Just to respond, it seems to me that what we have done is not to basically say we didn't like what the last administration did with the funding, therefore, we are going to take this authority back. But we basically said, we saw what you did with it, that seems to be okay. We aren't taking back authority to bail out the auto industry, or we aren't taking back authority to go into the banking sector, as we did. We basically are saying, well, you did this, we didn't authorize it, but we are letting you off with a warning here, I guess, until the new administration comes in. It seems to me that we ought to jealously guard our prerogatives here, the power of the purse. And when we authorize funding, we ought to ensure that the administration, whether it be the last Republican administration or the Democratic administration to come, adheres to those strictures. I thank the gentleman for his response, and I am glad to see some more controls put on here. There was an amendment accepted yesterday that I had offered, and I appreciate the fact that it was adopted. But I still think that we ought to approve the resolution.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

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

Mr. FLAKE. I just plan to close.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. My understanding is the Senate has already acted on language identical to this in a free-standing piece of legislation. This, I think, is certainly a priority of theirs as well, to make sure that the special IG has the authority to look over all disbursements of the TARP funds. I think it's incumbent on us in Congress to take better care here. I have been simply amazed at how jealous we guard our spending prerogatives here in the House, rightly so, but then when it came to TARP, we simply let them run with whatever they wanted to spend it on. We clearly did not contemplate here, those of us who are considering this in the House, that this money would be used for a bailout of the auto industry, for example. So I just want to make sure that the tools are there to make sure that proper accounting is done and proper review is made of the expenditure of funds. I am grateful the chairman has agreed to support the amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. This amendment is pretty straightforward. It simply allows the special inspector general for TARP to review any action tied to the distribution of TARP funds. The position of the special inspector general for the TARP Programs was created by section 121 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, which was signed into law in October. This legislation initially provided enough authority for the special inspector general, but because the purview for TARP, the scope expanded so significantly, this special Inspector General really didn't have the authority to look at these other items as well. It now includes, for example, TARP. The scope of TARP includes propping up a number of banks, bailing out AIG and Citicorp and providing assistance to U.S. automakers. Under the initial act, it wasn't clear that the special inspector general had the authority to look over these issues as well. This amendment will ensure that it does. In a November article in the Washington Post, the Treasury's Inspector General described the oversight of the current situation of TARP ``a mess.'' We need to make sure that the inspector general has sufficient authority to look over these other areas where TARP has gone. With that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, every so often a community is blessed with a giant of a man, a man whose imprint and influence will be felt for generations to come. Such is the case with Dennis Barney, who passed away this week at the far too young age of 62. Countless organizations like the United Way, the Boy Scouts, the Boys and Girls Club, the United Food Bank and the Arizona Interfaith Movement have profited from his generosity. Thousands of students, families and individuals have benefited from his kindness, his example and his inspired counsel. Still, it was within the walls of his own home that his most important work was accomplished. Along with his wife, Ann, he raised a remarkable family of 10 children who will surely carry on his great legacy. May every community in every State across this great land be so blessed as to know such a giant of a man as Dennis Barney.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, nobody here in this institution wants to see the auto industry go belly up. Some of us simply believe that the best way to ensure the long-term viability of the auto industry is to allow them to go into bankruptcy where they can reorganize in a way that will make them viable in the long term. This legislation simply represents the fatal conceit, the notion that we in this institution can outguess the millions of decisions by independent actors in the marketplace. We simply can't. We know that. Yet think about it. This legislation appoints a car czar. That sounds like the guy in East Germany in the 1970s who came up with the infamous Trabant, or Trabbie, which is the European version of the Edsel. How in the world can anybody in this institution or elsewhere in government outguess the marketplace? We simply can't. Mr. Speaker, let's allow this industry to go into bankruptcy and to reorganize in a way that they will be viable in the long term.