Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. There is nothing in the President's executive order that binds the Pentagon from reprogramming funds. It simply says that the Pentagon may decide to exclude earmarks that it did not request and that aren't in the statute language. I understand the importance of report language.

Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman has mentioned many projects. I'm sure all of those mentioned would survive the authorization, appropriation, and oversight.

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. I would simply say that the gentleman mentioned that he believes in disclosure, and if a person puts an earmark in, he should be able to withstand the heat that might come from it. The problem with this process is there's no opportunity for that to happen. I offered four amendments. I was given one. In an appropriations bill of more than 2,000 earmarks, how many can you really do? How many can you challenge. That is why we have had so many problems over the last couple of years with bad earmarks, is there's simply no way to adequately vet them. There were 36,000 earmark requests before the appropriations committee last year, and no way to vet them.

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman will yield one more time.

Mr. FLAKE. Well, then there's no need to earmark it this way if it's authorized. There's no reason to put it in committee or conference report language and not have it in the bill. I think what the President has rightly recognized is that when it's not in the bill, then there are limited opportunities for other Members to see it and to scrutinize it.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I intend to withdraw this amendment after speaking for a few minutes about the process here. I intended to offer an amendment to strip an earmark in California. It's not that I've had any epiphany on the earmark where I think it's good now. I don't. I think it should not be in this committee report. But I'm not at all happy with the process here. I submitted a total of five amendments to the Rules Committee. Two amendments were to target earmarks sponsored by Democrats. Two amendments were to target earmarks sponsored by Republicans. One was to uphold the President's executive order with regard to earmarks. When the rule came back from the Rules Committee, only one of the amendments was made in order, one amendment targeting a Republican earmark. Over the past couple of years, as the Members know, I have come to the floor more than a hundred times to try to strike earmarks. I have tried never to make it a partisan issue. When Republicans were in charge of this body, I sponsored more challenges to Republican earmarks. As the Democrats have taken charge, I've probably sponsored more challenges to Democrat earmarks. But as soon as this becomes a partisan issue, then we lose something here. Earmarks are an institutional issue, an institutional problem here, and we cannot treat it in a partisan fashion. That's why I will be asking for unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment. But the problem here is that we also didn't allow in the rule the amendment to uphold the President's executive order. The President wisely has recognized that when you don't have earmarks in the bill text, when you're allowed to put them in a committee or conference report, you don't have the scrutiny that you should have on earmarks. Just take, for example, this bill. This bill has about 500 earmarks. It went through the committee process. The earmarks were added at the last minute. In fact, I am told, at least on the Republican side and I suppose on the Democrat side as well, the rank-and-file members on the committee didn't even know which earmarks were allowed until the markup had happened; so it was impossible to challenge the earmarks while the bill was in committee. Now, tell me, if we are supposed to be vetting these earmarks, if we're supposed to be looking at them, where are we supposed to do it? It's not happening in the committee process. It's certainly not happening on the floor. So where do we actually look at these? We have a former Member of this body in jail right now for basically selling earmarks to defense contractors. He used the defense bill, year after year after year, I might add, and there was never a point at which those earmarks were challenged. Nobody looked. In fact, people looked the other way. There were plenty of warning signs out there that these earmarks were untoward. But we looked the other way. I would submit we are doing the same thing today. When you have a report come to the floor with more than 500 earmarks, none of which were even known to most members of the committee before it arrived here on the floor, and then when I offer amendments to the earmarks, I'm only told I can offer one on the floor, one targeting a Republican earmark, to try to make it a partisan issue, there's something wrong with this picture. I don't know when we are going to wake up and recognize that earmarks are cheapening this institution, and greatly. In Congress you place value and priorities by appropriating money and authorizing money, but when you have earmarks like this that are slipped in at the last minute out of sight, then you don't get proper debate on these priorities. You basically close your eyes to other people's earmarks because you want to protect your own. And when you have more than 500 earmarks, there are enough to spread around where debate that should be happening on defense priorities or other priorities in other bills is hushed and we simply don't have the scrutiny that these bills deserve. A lot of these earmarks are, in essence, single-source contracts to private companies. We get all over the administration, and properly so, when they give single-source contracts. Halliburton, how many times have we heard it? We should scrutinize that. We should provide oversight. Yet when one of our Members does it, we turn our backs and say we don't want to know because we might want to do it as well. Madam Chairman, we have to stop this process. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, if this represents reform, I would hate to see what the Ag Committee calls a boondoggle. We have here not just a continuation of all the programs we had before, some even at higher levels; we have a new program. As the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned, there was an article in the Washington Post today detailing the ACRE program. The ACRE program is a new program where subsidies will kick in at far higher levels than they ever have before. In fact, just take corn, for example. If corn hits $3.50 a bushel, where it was just a year or two ago, at historic highs for the time, if we hit that again, that will trigger subsidies totaling about $10 billion a year, in addition to everything we are doing today. That is not reform. That is far away from reform, and how somebody can stand up today and with a straight face say this is reform, I just don't know.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. FLAKE. I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentleman from Virginia responding to my statement about the ACRE program and the potential for taxpayer liability here. The reason that the CBO scored it as a net savings is because of what is called baseline shopping. It was done with this bill, where we actually reached back and chose to base the bill on a baseline, a prior year baseline, when corn prices, when wheat prices, when soybean prices weren't as high. Had we used this year's baseline or this year's projections, then we would see that next year, for example, when this kicks in, that you could have corn at $4.25 a bushel still receiving subsidies. Now, keep in mind $4.25 is higher than corn has ever been, until this year. And so dropping back to just what it was before this year will trigger subsidies that would not have been triggered before. That is not reform. That is not reform at all. That is soaking the taxpayers. That is farming the taxpayers rather than the land.

Mr. FLAKE. I just want to address some of the comments that have been made. It's been said several times that this bill is good because it's a bipartisan bill. If this is the standard by which we judge legislation, then we're doing pretty poorly in this House. If anybody remembers, just a couple of years ago, the infamous bill that brought us the Bridge to Nowhere. Do you want to know how bipartisan that bill was? I believe it was 412 votes for, 8 votes against. If that isn't bipartisan, what is? Yet who would want that vote back if they could? 6,300 earmarks, with a lot of bad ones, including the infamous Bridge to Nowhere. And yet we laud legislation simply because it's bipartisan. I would love to see a lot more partisanship in this House when it comes to fiscal discipline. I wish that my party, the Republican Party, would stand up and say, anybody who believes in limited government cannot support a bill like this, a $300 billion bill that is bipartisan because so many groups are now involved. You do a specialty crop title; you add another subsidy program called ACRE, you get biomass in it, you get cellulosic ethanol, you add another nutrition program, and pretty soon you have so many people in it that they don't dare vote against it, and it just gets bigger and bigger and bigger, and pretty soon you have a $300 billion bill that you can only pay for by shopping for a baseline other than this year's baseline, and waive PAYGO requirements. That's why this is a bipartisan bill. I would hope, in a week where a major news organization published, and I hope it set off some alarm bells here, that not only do we have about 9 or $10 trillion in debt, but when you add in the unfunded liabilities, it adds up to about a half a million dollars per person in this country, the amount of debt and unfunded obligation that we're on the hook for. If we cannot, in this legislation, tell a farm entity, a farm couple that earns as much as $2.5 million that they can no longer collect farm subsidies, how in the world are you going to tell a grandmother, you're going to have to postpone your retirement for a couple of years because we can't afford your Social Security payment? How in the world are you going to tell somebody, you know, you're going to have to have a higher copay on Medicare for prescription drugs because we have a big farm bill like this? We need to be more responsible, and I would urge us to sustain the President's veto. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 90 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, Congress recently approved the farm bill and it's now on its way to a Presidential veto. Any farm bill that increases the size and scope of government, lacks real reform, continues to provide for wasteful agricultural subsidies, and even allows millionaires to continue to receive these subsidies, deserves the veto that it's going to get. It also uses a lot of budget gimmicks to get under the level that would allow it to pass in the first place. So I am glad that the President has decided to veto the bill. We should sustain it. There's another big reason to sustain a Presidential veto of the farm bill. It's recently come to light, and we only know this because we got the final draft of the bill I believe on the day or just the day before that we voted on it so very few of us were able to actually look through it and to see what was in it. One of the programs in it is called the Average Crop Revenue Election, or ACRE program. This will allow farmers starting in 2009 the option of taking a 20 percent reduction in direct payments and other farm supports in return for a Federal guarantee on their revenue. Now as we talked about during the debate on the farm bill, farmers can receive direct payments that don't relate to the price of commodities at all. They simply receive payments based on acreage that they had way back when. These payments total about $5 billion a year. They should be done away with completely. But they are now seen as an entitlement. We tried and failed to remove those direct payments from the bill. Those are received, as I mentioned, by millionaires. In fact, a couple, a farm couple, husband and wife in farm and nonfarm income, can make as much as $2.5 million and still receive direct payments in this legislation. If that wasn't enough, this new ACRE program will allow farmers to actually claim subsidies at a level far higher than they used to under the old bill. Under the farm bill, 2002, which was bloated in itself, once crops dropped below a certain price, then some subsidies would kick in. But apparently those prices were too low for this new bill. And so under this new program, at a far higher threshold, new subsidies will kick in. The Department of Agriculture estimates that if the price of corn drops, for example, to $3.25 per bushel, the program, this new ACRE program that is new to this bill would dole out nearly $10 billion just to corn farmers. If the price of wheat drops to $4.50 a bushel, wheat farmers would be eligible for $2.5 million in assistance. Again, this is assistance above and beyond what we have done in the past, or what the bill calls for, anyway. This is new money that taxpayers are exposed to. This is a lot of exposure. It's indecent exposure for the taxpayers. If soybeans, for example, drop to about $7 per bushel, that is another $7 billion in assistance that will be going out to farmers. Now CBO's estimate of this program showed a net savings, but that was largely due to being forced to use outdated projections associated with the 2007 baseline. The bottom line is we have skyrocketing corn, wheat, soybean prices. When we base a new subsidy program off these high level prices, then we are going to kick in a lot more readily than we would have otherwise, and we are going to be paying out a lot more. The taxpayers will be on the hook for a lot more. These estimates, I think had they been available, had more people been aware of this new subsidy program, I think we would have had a lot more votes against the farm bill. It provides Members with a good reason, even if they voted for the farm bill last week, to sustain the President's veto and say let's go back to the drawing board. We simply cannot, cannot expose the taxpayers to this much subsidy. Way back when, part of what is driving corn prices so high, for example, are the ethanol subsidies that we are providing. We have been told for decades these were just to prime the pump. Once we get it started, get this program started, we won't need to subsidize ethanol any more. Yet, here again the bill we passed last week subsidizes ethanol heavily. It also imposes tariffs on imported ethanol. Now I believe that some people are worried that those ethanol subsidies, because we are learning how much they're increasing the cost of food and how much degradation of the environment is actually being caused by ethanol, that those ethanol subsidies might be going away. This is a way to guarantee money still being paid, regardless of ethanol subsidies, because the cry will be, Well, if we get rid of ethanol subsidies, the price of corn will drop and the taxpayers will be paying anyway if the price drops under this new subsidy program. So this is a way to simply ensure that we are paying subsidies, regardless. We shouldn't be doing so. We know that the farm bill, the old farm bill that we just replaced, the new farm bill, it pays out unnecessary subsidies, it distorts the free market, it forces farmers to plant where they shouldn't plant and not plant where they should, and it also distorts our international trade obligations and makes it less likely that we can open new markets. I would urge us, Madam Speaker, to sustain the President's veto of this farm bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I just want to make a brief observation here. We were here yesterday with the farm bill and witnessed the kind of traveling back in time, if you will, to find a baseline to use so that we could comply with PAYGO. So the majority party seems to use PAYGO however it fits their purposes. They will use PAYGO or they will ignore PAYGO or find ways around it by shopping for a baseline that works rather than what the law provides, or they will say we've got to comply with PAYGO today because we need to increase taxes. So it seems just an observation here that PAYGO is only used as a way not to enforce spending discipline because, if it actually does enforce any discipline, we waive it, but if it's used to increase taxes, then, by golly, we've got to enforce it. I just don't see how one day can make such a big difference if this wasn't the case.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 under clause 9 of rule XXI, because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1189 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. FLAKE. I would.

Mr. FLAKE. Again, I realize this bill has been in discussion for a couple of years. And I will come to that a little later as we talk about why earmarks had to be airdropped into the bill at the last minute. If we have been discussing this bill for 2 years, then couldn't we actually discuss these earmarks that were to be added to the bill instead of airdropping them into the conference report when nobody in the House or nobody in the Senate had even seen them? So it is hardly a defense to say that we have been discussing this for 2 years, nor is it a reason to deny those who are opposed to the bill an opportunity to actually claim time in opposition. Let me read from the House rules. If the floor manager for the majority and the floor manager for the minority both support the conference report or a motion, one-third of the time for debate thereon shall be allotted to a Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner who opposes the conference report or motion on demand of that Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner. We waived that. And we are not doing it. And let me tell you why I think that is the case. Now if I were supporting this bill, and I had been touting this bill as some big reform to our farm programs, I would flat be plumb embarrassed to bring this bill to the floor in its current form. I would be embarrassed. What has got most of the attention, the problem that we all note, that everybody across the country realizes, is how in the world can we have a situation where multimillionaire farmers are collecting subsidies courtesy of the taxpayer? And the real effort in here, what the President wanted, what others wanted, and what many of us here in the House argued for, was to put a cap on how much income you can have and still receive subsidies. The President suggested $200,000 adjusted gross income. Remember, adjusted gross income is your income minus expenses. All of us here collect a salary of about $169,000. By the time we deduct things for mortgage interest, medical expenses and charitable contribution, it brings that down by at least one-third, maybe even one-half. Under this legislation, a farm couple can have farm income and nonfarm income totaling $2.5 million and still receive direct payments under this legislation. Now, if I were bringing a bill to the floor and had touted this bill as reforming, man, I would want to hide that as well. I would not want somebody to be able to stand up and say, how is it that a multimillionaire farm couple can still collect subsidies from the taxpayers? So I commend the Rules Committee and those who are in support of the bill for actually putting a rule together that minimizes opposition that can be raised and that the only way people can stand up and oppose and be guaranteed time in opposition is to use a maneuver like raising a point of order against the bill. I should mention there are other problems with this and other reasons why this rule should not go forward. We are waiving PAYGO rules. Now one thing the majority said when they came into power is we will not waive PAYGO. We are going to live by PAYGO. When we give money out, we have to make sure that that many money is in the Treasury or we won't do it. This waives PAYGO because there is simply no way you can be in compliance with PAYGO and pass a $300 billion farm bill. And in this case, the writers of the legislation did something very creative. They actually went baseline shopping. What PAYGO says is that you have to take the current baseline, the most current baseline of spending, and total up your spending in the bill based on that current baseline. Instead, what the authors of this legislation did was said, oh, let's go to last year's baseline because we spent less money then and it means we can spend more money in this legislation. Baseline shopping. It is as if I were to say, I don't want to pay so much in taxes this year. So I am going to use last year's wages that I was paid, and I am going to report that instead. Now if I did that, I would be thrown in jail. But we are allowed to do this here. We are allowed to say, we will take whatever baseline we want as long as it allows us to spend more money in the legislation. And then when the bill comes to the floor, we will just waive the rule that required us to be honest in terms of bringing legislation that complies with PAYGO. I would love an explanation from the Rules Committee as to why PAYGO was waived in this regard. And I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order realizing that it is a bit of a stretch. The reason that we have this point of order in law is to guard against unfunded mandates being levied on the States. In this case, there are a lot of unfunded mandates being heaped upon taxpayers. I realize, as I said, this is a stretch. But I have to do this today because the rule that is before us does not allow anybody opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to the bill. Now how is it that a bill of this import, a bill that will spend over the next 10 years about $300 billion, is not important enough to allow those who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it? Instead, the structured rule before us today allows time to be split between the majority and the minority. Now those who will be controlling that time are people who are in support of the bill. How is it that we can discuss a bill this large, this important, that spends this much money, and that heaps this kind of burden on the taxpayer, yet again, without having a real discussion? When we have a bill before the House, we have time called ``general debate.'' In this case, general debate is between those in the majority who support the bill and those in the minority who support the bill. Now how is that debate? Why is it that the Rules Committee can't see fit to actually allow people who are opposed to the bill to claim time in opposition to it? With that, I would love to hear an explanation from the Rules Committee why we have a structured rule that does this. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.