Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I don't sit on the Intelligence Committee; so there may be some disagreement there about whether the ranking member was informed or not, and I think that will probably come to light later. But in this case, if we had followed the rules, we would have had the list before the Rules Committee shut down the amendment process because you need to be able to offer amendments on specific earmarks. And in this case, unless a Member can go up and view the classified annex and come away with an assurance or some kind of comfort level that the earmark under question is for the intended purpose or it should be in the intelligence bill, then we are at a loss when we come to vote. I think our constituents expect us to be informed, and when we can't even go up and view the classified annex and be informed, then there is a problem.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will yield.

Mr. FLAKE. My office has a timeline, actually, if anyone is interested, and when we requested the list of earmarks, when we finally got it, what we were told by which office, and I can tell you this is no way to run a process, particularly given the recent history of problems that we have had in this regard. And that is why I am concerned, and that is why I feel we can't do that in an open session like this. We have to go to secret session.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I will.

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I would not, given that I cannot discuss some of what I need to discuss in open session, given what has transpired. I don't think that we can. That is why we need a closed session. I will offer the motion, and if you don't feel that we need to go into closed session, then you can vote against it.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me point out I have the utmost respect for my friend from Washington. We have worked together on many issues. First, he mentioned that the private sector groups are in support of this legislation and the National Science Foundation. I have no doubt. It doesn't surprise me at all. But I would submit that that's akin to the government saying we are in a position now to fund free lunches for everyone out there, and you can do it on the government's dime. I would say that virtually every company in America would say that's a great idea. Now we don't have to fund that. We don't have to subsidize it for our employees. We can keep the profits, invest them elsewhere. If private companies don't have to expend that money in their R&D budgets, they would like not to. But that was a point I made, that this often supplants money that would be invested in the private sector, probably more efficiently if overall government spending is any guide. To the amendment in specific, the gentleman from Georgia said it well. With all the high-priority items in the National Science Foundation budget, to take money out of that and to give it to those who didn't present a successful proposal would seem to me not the highest-priority use of money. Remember, this is a new program. I am not cutting a program that exists. This is a new pilot project. I just don't think this is a road that we want to go down. I started to mention, before my time ran out before, we have seen this in other fields, in other earmark fields, where people are funding business consortiums. Many of the earmarks in this body go to business consortiums to help them draft grant proposals to get other earmarks or to get grants from government or to lobby to get earmarks. It's simply not a road that we want to go down as a Congress, I would submit. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I just have to say from the outset that I have been amazed, like the gentleman from Georgia who mentioned a while ago, you would think if you were listening to this debate at home that the only research, the only science research going on in this country is funded by government, and it is simply not the case, gratefully. In fact, just a fraction of the research going on in the scientific field is funded by government. The private sector funds it gratefully. And unfortunately, one can make the case and the case is often made persuasively that as we increase government funding in this area, it displaces private sector funding because companies can then rely on government rather than their own R&D budgets. There is also something called opportunity cost. Whenever you hear the word ``investment'' in terms of government funding, you have to be a little skeptical. You have to say what is the opportunity cost? If you had left this money in the private sector, would it have produced more? You will never know that. But we do know the private sector tends to do things a lot more efficiently than government does. Let me speak to this amendment. This amendment would strike a new pilot project created in this bill. Keep in mind, people will say we cannot cut this bill or whatever else. This is a new program that I am seeking to strike here. This pilot project would award one-year grants to individuals to assist them in improving research proposals that were previously submitted to the National Science Foundation but were not selected for funding. In other words, if you submit an application, it is not approved for funding, the government will give you money to improve the application so it might be approved next year. The man that comes on television, running around in this crazy suit, Matthew Lesko I think is his name, comes to mind here. Are we going to fund like Matthew Lesko? Are we simply saying, all right, here is more money to help you get government money? Are there not sufficient programs within the National Science Foundation that we should be funding, that we have extra money to actually fund people who did not get the grants to help them improve their proposals that they might get a grant next year? I understand the defense will say, or those defending these grants that this pilot project is intended to help younger scientists who may be losing out on NSF grants because they do not know how to prepare proposals compared to more seasoned researchers or scientists. The answer does not lie in more Federal dollars to help them prepare grant proposals. If there are problems in terms of more tenured scientists getting these proposals, then perhaps we ought to look at the application process and procedures and tweak those or change those rather than say let us spend money and take money out of the National Science Foundation budget and give it to people who were rejected in their funding. This is a tight budget environment. I need not remind the majority that we are in a deficit situation. I would support across-the-board cuts everywhere in government, but boy, to say that we have got to increase the budget here 25 percent over 3 years is a bit steep, and then to create a new program like this one and to say we are going to give money to those who are not getting the programs, and one more thing before I yield back. I have heard from the other side, those defending the current budget and arguing against proposals to actually cut specific programs, that we have a peer review process and that research grants should only be given out that way. I am glad to hear that because my guess is when we come 3 months from now or 2 months from now to the appropriations process, in the SSJC budget, there will be earmarks from that side of the aisle, from this side of the aisle, to fund specific research grants, some of whom were turned down during the peer review process. So this notion that you have got to have peer review and that we do not have the knowledge, I will confess that, but then why in the world are we earmarking like we are? The earmarks are specifically to say I know better than the folks at NSF or folks over here because I am going to give it to my university or somebody who may have lost out on a grant, and so the notion that, hey, you know, you guys do not know what you are talking about when you are trying to cut spending, leave it to the experts, we do not leave it to the experts. The Congress does not leave it to the experts. If we trusted the experts, we would not be earmarking like we are. But, again, back to the specific amendment, this is a new program, a new program to take money from the existing budget of NSF that we have all heard is so important that we have to have for research, and giving it to people who did not get their projects approved, did not get a contract, did not get research dollars to help them prepare research dollars. This reminds me actually of many of the earmarks that you will see in the given months. Many of those are given to people to prepare grants to receive more money.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for putting together such a great alternative budget. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the budget resolution being considered today, and I do urge support for the minority substitute budget. Totaling nearly $3 trillion, the 2008 budget, as introduced, is the largest in history, and it fails on many levels. First, it fails to provide significant entitlement reform. Second, it fails to provide fiscal restraint on discretionary spending. And finally, it fails in reducing the physical burden on taxpayers. The 2008 budget, as introduced, also fails to provide a blueprint for reining in our bloated farm programs. I want to talk about that for a minute. This budget is consistent with CBO's March baseline and provides funding for reauthorization of current farm bill programs. But it also allows for up to $20 billion in so-called ``reserve spending'' over 5 years. Even with select commodity prices as high as they are, allowing for farm programs to continue at their current funding level is a tough pill to swallow. Even though an estimated allocation is included in the budget, under the current farm programs, the actual amount of spending will depend on future commodity prices. Should crop prices fall, as they did after the 1996 farm bill, we will see dramatic increases in farm payments, spending that we have not accounted for or that we have otherwise offset for. According to the CRS, the 1996 farm bill was expected to cost $37 billion over 7 years, but with farm prices falling dramatically, the Federal Government actually spent nearly $90 billion. This could happen again. With the volatility inherent in current farm program spending, taxpayers should not be saddled with an additional $20 billion over 5 years in so-called reserve spending. While at this point this reserve spending requires offsets, there is no way to ensure that that requirement will actually stick in the outyears. Mr. Chairman, I urge support for the minority substitute, which includes fiscal restraint and an unprecedented level of transparency. The substitute budget includes about $300 billion worth of savings in entitlement reforms and balances the budget in 5 years without increasing taxes. With 77 million baby boomers set to retire, pushing the total cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid from today's 8.4 percent of GDP to 18.9 percent of GDP in 2050, we literally cannot afford to do nothing. The substitute budget also does not provide the additional reserve spending for agriculture programs. Finally, the substitute budget includes a requirement that earmarks be included in the text of appropriation bills. This is a measure that I have championed for a while, and I should point out in the last Congress I had good bipartisan support. Many Democrats supported this legislation. They are not today. I think it should be noted, if it was good last year, it's good this year as well. I urge support for the substitute budget.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will just finish. I will say again, let's not authorize a new program when we concede that there is considerable waste in the current program. To say that we simply can't address what is in the past, these programs are continuing forward. Let's simply say, let's take from this formula, the money that is distributed by formula and favor, and apply it toward the real risks out there, rather than creating new authorization for new spending on programs that can be taken care of elsewhere. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The Acting Chairman. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed. Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Lynch

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I simply have a hard time believing that there aren't sufficient private sector contractors out there. And if the Federal Government needs to set some standards and say we will only take dogs or companies that are licensed this way or that way, they can do that. But to get in the business of competing is simply wrong. I would urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike section 107 of the underlying bill. This section authorizes $87 million for a new Homeland Security grant program for private bus companies. I and some of my colleagues have expressed concern about what we see as Homeland Security grant waste. It is everywhere in the country. It is in my district. It is in virtually every district across the country. I pointed out in a recent meeting that in my own district there is some Homeland Security funding going to things like synchronization of street lights. It shouldn't come from the Federal Government. It needs to be done, should be done, by local governments. In this case, this is activity that should be done by the private companies themselves. We have seen Homeland Security grants in recent years go to protect mushroom festivals, lawn mower races, investigations into bingo halls, and puppet show performances. There seems to be no end to the waste. Yet now we are going to authorize a new Homeland Security grant program to go to private bus operators like the Hampton Jitney? For those who have not ridden on the Hampton Jitney, it is a private bus service that brings wealthy East Side Manhattanites to their beach homes in the Hamptons. The Hampton Jitney and other private bus companies such as Greyhound and Peter Pan Bus Lines have received Homeland Security grant dollars under the Intercity Bus Security Grant program in 2005. This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. These are for-profit enterprises that should not be underwritten by the taxpayer. This amendment to eliminate this wasteful spending is supported by an array of taxpayer groups across the country. I would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me point out that in 2005 I mentioned there is already an Intercity Bus Security Grant award program. Under this program, since 2005, Academy Express LLC has received $267,279; Greyhound Lines has received $5,471,365; Trans-Bridge Lines, $466,611. How do you decide which private sector business gets the grant and which ones don't? What about a group like, as I mentioned, the Hampton Jitney? It is hardly a model of an intercity where it is just taking people that can't afford to ride the bus. It goes to the Hamptons. Yet we are subsidizing that. Here is another one. It is called the Hampton Luxury Liner. This is another one that would qualify, that would be eligible to receive grants under this program. They advertise complimentary snacks, complimentary beverage, a feature movie. The latest periodicals, newspapers, and magazines are handed out to those patrons who ride those bus lines, yet they will be eligible to receive grants, taxpayer money, to subsidize their business. Why are we doing this kind of corporate welfare? Where are those who stand against corporate welfare? When are they going to stand up and say, enough is enough, we shouldn't be doing this? We are wasting too much money in the Homeland Security program that should be actually spent in threat-based programs where there are real, actual threats, instead of simply spread around by formula or favor around the country. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the talk about cleaning up the extravagant spending in the past. I applaud it. I just don't see it. I just wish that you would say, all right, this was a scandal. We gave out millions and millions of dollars to private bus companies and others. Yet how are we going to fix it? We are going to create a new authorized program, a new one on top of this. Instead of saying, let's go in and find the waste, fraud, and abuse that was there before, we are not doing that. We are adding a new program. What this amendment does is simply strikes funding for the new authorization so we don't do more. If we do need these expenditures that are risk-based, then let's take out the formula funding that we are already doing. If you are in the majority and you have the power to do it, please don't blame those in the past. I have no brief for what we did before. I didn't vote for the creation of the Department. But if there is waste and abuse, let's take care of it. Let's not add to it. And that is what we are seeking to do with this amendment. Don't go any further. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying we are already spending millions and millions, tens of millions of dollars on programs to make sure that bus travel and other modes of transportation travel are safe. Let's not add another program so that the Hampton Jitney and other private sector businesses can continue to receive this kind of corporate welfare. We can't keep doing this. We have a massive deficit and a huge debt. When are we going to say, let's stop authorizing new programs like this? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike funding in the bill for the TSA puppy breeding program, the increase that is slated to take place in section 203 of the underlying bill. The Transportation Security Administration, or TSA, has a puppy program that puts government in the role of being the breeder of bomb- sniffing dogs. This is clearly a role for the private sector. There are literally hundreds, or thousands perhaps, private contractors that perform this function. It seems laughable to me that the Federal Government needs to be in the business of breeding dogs for any purpose. Some will defend the role of bomb-sniffing dogs. I don't question the importance of the work that these animals do. It is important. It is needed. It is certainly necessary. What I am questioning is whether or not the Federal Government ought to be in the business of breeding dogs. This is something that the private sector does a lot more effectively. I would ask any American who has been to the airport, any airport at any time recently, if they believe that the TSA is so efficient in what they do that they have somehow found new efficiencies in dog breeding and that this is something that they ought to be spending their time doing. I would venture to say, no, that they ought to spend their time in doing the tasks that they have been given and not expanding their reach further into this business. How much this will cost the average American taxpayer is unclear. In the bill it simply says ``such sums as may be necessary.'' I think that we should, if there is a figure, it ought to be there rather than a simple ``such sums as may be necessary.'' We have no idea how expensive this program may become. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time and look forward to hearing the justification for this program.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the discussion on this. As I said, nobody is questioning, certainly not me, the need to have bomb- sniffing dogs. The FAA has had programs since 1972. Those programs have continued. But in 1999 the FAA, and as later taken up by the TSA, got into the business of dog breeding. All this amendment says is, don't go any further. I have yet to hear a justification why the Federal Government needs to be in the business of dog breeding.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, I have here a list of many, many companies that perform this function already that offer canine support services in the private sector. I still don't know why the Federal Government is in the business. I haven't heard justification, and I don't think we can take it at face value. I will bet if you go to the private contractors here they would say there is enough. There are plenty of people in the private sector that are doing this. Why is the Federal Government competing with the private sector? Why are we in the business? I can guarantee you that TSA hasn't found efficiencies that people in the private sector already know.

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