Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, is it true that House Rule XXI, clause 9(d) defines an earmark as report language included primarily at the request of a Member recommending a specific amount of spending authority for an entity or targeted to a specific State, locality, or congressional district?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, does the language in the committee report directing $35 million to risk mitigation project at NASA's Stennis facility constitute an earmark, as defined in rule XXI, clause 9(d)?

Mr. FLAKE. So I can understand this, if the chairman of the committee simply says there are no earmarks, then the Chair is obligated to say there are no earmarks for the purpose of the rule?

Mr. FLAKE. Is it accurate to say that a Member could request an earmark through the chairman of the committee and have that earmark funded, and then the report come to the floor claiming that there are no earmarks in fact in the bill?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, we have passed some good rules with regard to earmark reform and transparency, but we have found a way around them already, because when a report comes to the floor the rule states that it has to state if there is an earmark there, which Member requested it, and what it is for. Yet here we have something that is clearly an earmark for the Stennis facility and not an emergency by any definition. And my office actually called NASA, called the administration, asked was this requested. No, it wasn't; the request came from Congress. Clearly, an earmark request. Yet the report comes to the floor; and because it says there are no earmarks, we have to take it for the purpose of the rule that there are no earmarks. I am just wondering if this is how the appropriations cycle is going to go this year? Do the earmark rules mean anything? Or simply, can we get around them this way? What is to stop every Member from going to the chairman and saying, I have a request for this for my district. Will you simply put it in the overall request? Therefore, my name won't be attached to it. We need to clean up these rules. If the chairman of the Appropriations Committee would clarify this, I would be most appreciative.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent from the Chamber on March 19 during rollcall votes 157, 158, and 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 157, ``nay'' on rollcall 158, and ``nay'' on rollcall 159.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate two outstanding high school choirs from my district, the Chandler High School Chorale and the Highland High School Concert Choir. These groups were selected by competitive audition out of dozens of high schools across the country to perform on March 19, 2007, at New York's famed Carnegie Hall. The Chandler High School Chorale from Chandler, Arizona, has already distinguished itself as one of the top high school choirs in the Nation. Led by Dean Anderson, the chorale has performed across the country and around the world over the past two decades. This is the choir's second performance in the Carnegie Hall National High School Choral Festival, a singular achievement in the festival's history. The Highland High School Concert Choir of Gilbert, Arizona, has also secured a spot in the festival. Led by Rita Scholz, the concert choir has performed in the Arizona ACDA conference, the Arizona Music Educators Association Conference, and the 1998 MENC National Convention. The Highland High School choral music program consists of 170 students in five performing ensembles, presenting four concerts on campus per year, as well as other performances around the country. I am honored to have two of the four schools in the Nation chosen from my district.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the resolution before us. I wish I could do so with the type of certainty that seems to motivate many of my colleagues on the issue. But such resolute certainty escapes me. I do not have a military background. In fact, few of us debating this resolution do. But each of us can find generals or former generals who will support virtually every option we wish to put on the table. In the end, as legislators, we are left with our own council. Hopefully, such council is informed by briefings, hearings, meetings, and visits to the region. But we cannot and should not try to place ourselves in the position of Commander in Chief. Our system of government wisely gives that role to the Chief Executive. This is not to say, however, that we should not be having this discussion. Some have said that simply debating this resolution emboldens our enemies. Perhaps they are right, but we would not suspend due process in this country because it might embolden criminals. It is a price we are willing to pay. Likewise, debating the merits of war is what democratic nations do. My own thoughts on the situation in Iraq are as follows: I have little confidence that a surge in troop levels will change the situation in Iraq in any substantive fashion. It seems clear that the violence in Iraq is increasingly sectarian, and inserting more troops in this atmosphere is unlikely to improve matters very much. Without a more sincere commitment to step up to the plate from the Iraqi Government, we are unlikely to make significant progress. But when all is said and done, we have a Commander in Chief whom we have authorized to go to war. Inserting ourselves as legislators into the chain of command by passing a resolution, nonbinding though it may be, that questions the President's decision to conduct a mission that is clearly already under way strikes me as folly. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the resolution.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and putting together this Special Order. And I just have a minute, but I would like to submit a statement for the Record and to point out how important it is. I am glad so many are making the distinction between tax relief and spending, overall government spending. You simply can't assume that spending money on a teapot museum ought to be treated the same as leaving money in people's pockets. You simply can't equate them the same. You can't score them the same. Whenever we have tax relief, we have increased revenue. As the gentleman from Texas correctly pointed out, those are the facts, and it has happened again and again and again. So I am glad that so many are saying that tonight, and, again, I will submit a statement for the Record. I applaud the President's commitment to balancing the budget by 2012 without raising taxes. I also support the attention given to cutting entitlement growth. Mandatory entitlement spending eats up 50 percent of the almost $3 trillion budget and is growing at an alarming rate. However, I am concerned that Members will erode these savings by proposing to increase entitlement programs and, in order to adhere to the new PAYGO rules, claim that the increases will be offset by eliminating some of the important tax relief Congress has passed over the last 5 years. This rationale assumes that a tax cut is simply a straight-out loss of revenue for the Federal Government. This is why it is extremely important to consider how tax cuts have actually affected revenues over the last couple of years. For example, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the cost of the 2003 and 2004 tax cuts would equal $296 billion in lost revenues for fiscal years 2003 to 2005. However, tax revenues actually finished fiscal year 2005 at $124 billion above the adjusted baseline, meaning that 42 percent of the projected revenue loss had been recouped. That number still continues to grow each year. It is irresponsible to assume that by eliminating tax relief the government will see an increase in revenues. I believe the opposite is true. We must take into account the increased capital that tax relief produces, which translates into more investments and savings, more jobs, and, ultimately, more income tax revenues. This is why I will soon reintroduce my bill to require the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation to include dynamic scores in their analysis of all revenue bills, and encourage my colleagues to cosponsor it. We cannot continue to make policy decisions based on predictions that simply do not take into consideration fundamental economic principles that have been proven time and again.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6. This bill is fatally flawed, both because of the provisions that it contains and also the process that brought it to the floor. Simply put: Congress performs best when the process of Authorization, Appropriation, and Oversight is followed through the regular order. This bill seeks to both Authorize and Appropriate at the same time by short-cutting the authority of the Budget Committee and directing spending. In addition, this new language was brought to the floor without the benefit of review by any Committees, and even before the Resources Committee has been organized. Finally, this bill seeks to create a slush fund for spending on non- specific programs with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that funds are spent appropriately. We are not talking about an insignificant amount; rather, CBO estimates that these provisions will raise $14 billion dollars in federal revenue--$14 billion that should be returned to the Treasury for deficit reduction, if raised at all. Beyond the argument of oil and gas tax incentives, sanctity of contracts, or renewable resources, I simply cannot support a bill that displays such a disregard for the legislative process and handle taxpayer dollars with such irresponsibility.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting debate today. We have heard on the other side: Today is the day I am going to vote to give the American worker a raise. Would that we all had that kind of power. Unfortunately, with this, we can dictate that. Unfortunately, somebody else has to pay that wage. It is simply not right to inject ourselves into the free market in that way. Yes, it would be nice if everyone could make a larger wage. The problem is, the price of everything is elastic. When the price goes up, the demand goes down. Those are the irrefutable laws of the free market. To think that we can simply go in and dictate and change things that way is wrong. Less than a month ago I was in Cuba. Now, in Cuba, a janitor makes the same as a doctor. Some might say that is a good thing until you realize that they both make about $20 a month. It is not good when government controls the price and wage and controls the economy. I am not suggesting that we are anywhere close to that, but supposing that we can inject ourselves and have this week wage controls, a little later this week, price controls in the form of negotiating with companies what drugs are going to cost, is simply the wrong direction to go. I would urge everyone here to reject the notion that we as Members of Congress should inject ourselves into the free market in that manner.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And first I want to compliment the Democrats for earmark reform that is stronger than the Republicans did. Democrats in this way had more guts than we did to tackle earmark reform in a meaningful way, and I compliment them for that. And let me just note, though, with regard to earmarks something that was said a little earlier. It was said that we can't save money by eliminating earmarks. That is simply not true. It was not true when it was said on this side of the aisle last year, and it is not true when it is said from that side of the aisle today. It is like saying, and the best analogy that I think of is if you go to McDonald's and you order a combo meal and you are sitting there and you say, I am going to save money by not eating the French fries I just ordered, you are correct, you can't. That is the same analogy that is being made on that side. Once you get to the appropriation process, once the 302(a)s and 302(b)s are already set, that is right, you are not going to save money. But you can save money by not ordering the combo meal, by saying, We are going to be spending, we spent last year $3 billion in earmarks in this bill, let's lower our allocation and let's spend less. So this notion that we can't save money by deciding not to spend money on a teapot museum or the Wisconsin procurement initiative is simply not right. But I appreciate, and again I want to compliment, the Democrats for doing stronger earmark reform than we did. Let me make a few comments about PAYGO. If you are going to do PAYGO, I would argue do it whole hog. Let's apply it to mandatory spending; let's apply it to automatic adjustments that come up in the appropriation process every year. This PAYGO reform is incomplete, and it may simply lead to tax increases because you will say the only way we can make this mandatory adjustment is to increase taxes. So the PAYGO restrictions, it is disappointing that they aren't stronger. I would support PAYGO on spending. There is a difference between saying you can keep your own money or we are going to spend your money. And that ought to be made plain in PAYGO.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Does the gentleman have an answer to the question I asked?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I should say that we need to remember whose generosity we are relying on here, and it is the taxpayer. And also to make a point of fairness, again, the chairman that spoke earlier, the gentleman from Texas, mentioned that there are some 600 staffers that are affected here. I would submit that there are more than 600 staffers in the personal offices who are affected here. And rather than the average salary of $60,000 to $80,000 or whatever that is, the average salary in a personal office is much, much lower. Are they not worthy? Is it a fault of their own that their bosses were not re-elected? Why are we choosing here between them? Why are we saying if you work in a leadership office, you are worthy of this; if you work in a personal office, you are not? That is what happens in the middle of the night when decisions like this are made. That is why we shouldn't do decisions like that when we are given notice minutes before it comes up on the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to anyone who can tell me that a committee staffer has a longer contract than somebody who works in a personal office. It is simply not the case. So the notion that a committee staffer should be treated differently is simply wrong. The gentleman from Indiana, I think, said it best. Nobody is here arguing that we shouldn't be generous. It is that when you come here in the middle of the night the last day of session, you rarely think things out very well and this isn't thought out very well. How can you say some people, we're just going to target who gets this benefit and who doesn't? This isn't how the public expects us to conduct our business. As I mentioned before, we are already accused of having different rules for Congress than exist out there in the general public.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would yield.

Mr. FLAKE. I reclaim my time. No one has berated anyone. I have worked with very, very able committee staff. Very, very able leadership staff. Also very able personal staff. That is not the point here. The point is if we want small government and we want it to work, let's not conduct it in the middle of the night on the last day of session. Let's actually come here in January and say, should we have a different severance package? Should it be different for committee staff? Should it be different for personal staff? But let's do it in the light of day. Let's do it with some kind of deliberation. That is all we are asking. No one is berating anyone's staff. No one is. That is the last thing on my mind or anyone who has spoken here. So let's just step back. Please withdraw this resolution. Let's have a little more thought to this. I think the American people want us to deliberate. They want us to do it in the light of day, not at 11:40 at night, or 11:20 at night. We shouldn't be doing business this way. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill. I would like to claim time in opposition to the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, how much time do I have?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I didn't learn about this, nor do I believe most of my colleagues did, until just minutes ago, if not an hour or so ago. This is not the way to conduct business. It is one thing to have a policy, a long-term policy on severance packages, but to spring it in the middle of night on the last day of session is simply the wrong way to do business. My understanding is that this would apply to leadership staff and committee staff, but not regular personal offices. Could somebody please tell me how that is fair? If you are just talking about fairness, how is it fair to say to somebody from a personal office, your boss lost, you haven't got a severance? But, oh, if you happened to work for a committee or if you are lucky enough to work for leadership staff, you have a package. How is that fair? We are often accused in Congress of having a package that members of the general public don't have. In doing this, we are offering a package that some people in Congress have and some people in Congress don't have, let alone the rest of the population. How is that fair? Why are we doing business this way in the middle of the night on the last day of session? Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my next speaker, I was just informed that we don't even know what this will cost. We still don't have a cost estimate. If somebody has one, that would be great if we can have it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the gentleman from Arizona, let me point out that there were some 30 offices, and with retirements even more than that, personal staff who will be out on the street with no severance package at all. Again, we are picking winners and losers. Winners are those who work in leadership offices or on committee staff. If you are in a personal office, tough luck. This is just not well thought out in the middle of the night to be doing this, and with no cost estimate. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).