Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2121.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the point he raised. He mentioned that several other areas of the bill had been cut. I am aware of that, precisely because I recommended some of those cuts. In fact, I testified both before the Committee on the Budget and before the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the money available for land acquisition, Federal land acquisition, because we keep adding Federal land, and it just adds to the PILT problem. PILT, as we all know, is short for payment in lieu of taxes. This is a program whereby counties in rural areas, in particular I am from Arizona, 87 percent of Arizona is publicly owned. Some 50 percent, 60 percent of the State is federally owned, and counties find it difficult to provide the services that other counties with more private land are able to provide, and when we continue to add Federal land, we exacerbate the problem of these counties being able to fund services. I come from a rural area of the State and I have seen these problems firsthand. So what we need to do is fully fund PILT. We do not need to add more land for the Federal Government. That is why I made those recommendations, and I think it is fitting and proper that we can find the money in other accounts to actually fund this. What we have recommended is that we find savings of $13 million in the facilities capital account of the Smithsonian and $2 million from the grants and administration account of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these accounts were increased by that same amount or more in this past year. So we are simply slowing the rate of growth in these areas and fully funding PILT. The PILT program has been authorized at $340 million; yet it has only received $226 million in this bill. That is $1 million more than last year's level and woefully short of what is needed. It is important to note that this year's budget resolution stated that the budget resolution can accommodate funding for the PILT at a fully authorized level; however, it was only increased by $1.3 million. As I mentioned, we are not advocating an increase in PILT overall. That is important to all fiscal conservatives. What we are saying is that we should move some of the funding and increases in areas that have increased over the past year and move them into this area where we all recognize, and the gentleman from Wisconsin said it well, that we ought to increase the funding in this area. I should note that this amendment is supported by the Western Caucus, and I know a few of these Members will be speaking on it shortly.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. FLAKE. I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8. Our amendment was changed. At the time the relevant section came and went, and by the time we had finished it, it had gone.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.

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

Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to be here. I have no notes other than what I just jotted down a second ago because I thought this year when we are facing deficits of nearly $500 billion that nobody would dare stand up and ask for an increase in funding for the NEA or the NEH. I am surprised and, frankly, disappointed that we are doing that. How can we, as Republicans, on this side in particular, as a party of limited government, stand up and call to increase funding for the NEH and the NEA at any time, but particularly this year. If there is $13.5 million in overhead at the Department of the Interior, and the argument is we are not increasing funding, we are simply moving it from one side to the other, I would suggest, as my colleague from Pennsylvania suggested, let us return that to the taxpayers. Let us lower the deficit. But to simply take it over and increase funding, which will simply lead to more increases and more increases, as we have seen in previous years, is simply not the way we ought to go. It was noted earlier that this is only point zero, zero, zero whatever of the Federal budget; we can afford that. Just point zero, zero, zero whatever, we can afford that. Well, if that is the case, if we look at arts funding, Federal funding of the arts is only point zero, zero, zero whatever of what is spent on the arts. The other happens to be spent by patrons of the arts, myself and others who actually go and view it or listen to it, or enjoy it in some other form. Certainly the dire consequences that are spelled out on the other side of the aisle for the arts if the Federal Government cuts back its share or does not increase its share are not going to happen because the arts are important. People realize that. It does not take the Federal Government to tell people that. I encourage my colleagues to understand that we are in a big deficit situation, nearly $500 billion. We hear the other side of the aisle talk about that a lot, but then propose to increase programs like this. I would suggest that both our side of the aisle and theirs ought to get serious about containing this deficit, and we ought to start by not increasing funding for the arts at this time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, today the House approved by voice vote H.R. 4417, a bill to modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine- readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents. I applaud the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Sensenbrenner, for advancing this important legislation, which is the first step in ensuring that the United States and Visa Waiver Program countries are able to honor the obligations that were put into law in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002. I am concerned, however, that H.R. 4417 does not grant the Administration the full two-year period that will be necessary to achieve the issuance of biometric, machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports that meet international standards. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security have stated that not even the United States will be ready to issue such passports by October 2005. The uncertainty and confusion created by a one-year extension for both potential travelers to the U.S., as well as the industries that serve them during their stays here, must be taken into account. The Senate is considering legislation that would grant the Administration the two-year period that they seek. I believe that this approach will facilitate an efficient completion of the passport development and issuance process, while also taking into account important national security concerns.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, those of us who have had the good fortune to be born and raised in Arizona have always had the words and life of Barry Goldwater to shape our political philosophy. It was during the Goldwater campaign of 1964 that Ronald Reagan came to national prominence. During that campaign, Reagan delivered a speech so memorable that it was known thereafter simply as ``The Speech.'' It was, in my opinion, the greatest political speech ever delivered. In it, Reagan included the words, ``You and I are told that we must choose between a left or right, but I would suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down: up to a man's age-old dream, the maximum in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the antheap of totalitarianism.'' Equally memorable was the line: ``This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.'' Madam Speaker, having now spent 4 years in the far distant capital, I can attest that this insight from Ronald Reagan still bears remembering. I was never able to meet President Reagan personally. It is one of my great regrets in life. But like all Americans, I am well acquainted with his goodness. I will always be grateful that he was my President.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179. 1 was regrettably absent from the chamber on May 17 during rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 177, ``yea'' on rollcall 178, and ``yea'' on rollcall five.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy- Snyder amendment. I urge its adoption. This debate we are having right now points up the importance of having a nonpolitical process. That is why the BRAC came about. That is why we have to stick to the schedule. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff representing all the chiefs want the Congress to continue the 2005 rounds of the base alignment and closures as authorized by Congress. They do not want us to leave this issue in because of the savings they want to accrue. This will be essential for the restructuring of the military forces. To delay all the efforts of the military, to accomplish this restructuring, to leave our bases and local communities in doubt for another 2 years is not doing either the military or the community any favor. Delaying the transformation of military bases overseas and at home, it ties the hands of our military at the same time they are fighting the war on terrorism. We owe it to our Armed Forces to give them the savings and the structuring reprocess that they need. I urge strong adoption of this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, today I voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 4280, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2004. This is not the first time I have had to make this difficult vote. On March 13, 2003, I voted against H.R. 5, which contained nearly identical language to H.R. 2480. Both in 2003 and today, I have heard arguments as to why the Federal Government should act and why this proposed reform is badly needed. Hearing these arguments on many occasions has not made it any less difficult to vote against this bill, but I am not convinced that the Federal Government should preempt State law in this area. Those supporting this bill have made some compelling arguments as to why Congress should step in and institute these reforms. They cite the national nature of insurance plans, whereby a doctor in Arizona might have to pay more for malpractice insurance due to an over-the-top jury award in Florida. They also note that, as doctors close up shop or stop providing high-risk care in specialties such as emergency medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, patients are forced to cross State lines in order to seek out treatment. We have all watched with dismay as hospitals have been forced to shut their doors and doctors have opted to treat patients without malpractice insurance due to the high costs of premiums. Certainly, the trial attorneys who line their pockets with egregious fees aren't suffering as a result of the mess they've made with unscrupulous lawsuits. These arguments only underscore an already evident need for the States to pursue medical malpractice reforms. However, as one who believes firmly in federalism, I am wary of supporting legislation that would, in effect, preempt other States' constitutions. For example, California instituted real medical malpractice reform 25 years ago, which H.R. 4280 seeks to emulate. However, if the final version of H.R. 4280 differs from California's reform, then their system may ultimately be usurped by the new Federal authority created by this legislation. Punishing California's sensible reforms would be a terrible outcome. The natural evolution of health care delivery suggest that a Federal solution such as H.R. 4280 may one day be necessary. But right now it's up to the States to begin that process, and I am already a part of those efforts in Arizona. The States should follow California's example, which has been an undeniable success over the past 25 years.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing forth this crucial amendment. We learned overnight that more than $1 billion was added in earmarks to this project. This bill is out of control, and unless we have the Isakson amendment, there is simply no semblance of equity to this bill. If this amendment fails, we have only one recourse and that is to ask the President, Mr. President, please veto this bill. Please veto this bill. This Congress is out of control, and it is in desperate needs of some adult supervision. With that, I ask for support for the Isakson amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in voting against the conference report on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003, I want to be clear that I voted for the original House version of the bill. When we considered this bill in the House of Representatives, it simply contained a replacement rate for the defunct 30-year Treasury rate used for calculating pension liabilities. Using a rate based on a blend of high-quality corporate bonds, companies with pension plans are expected to realize about $80 billion in appropriate funding relief. When the other Chamber produced its version of the bill, however, the merits of the House bill were more than offset by special interest favors for a few airline and steel companies. This version would give automatic waivers to airlines by law, but the relief would only benefit a few companies in these industries. The companies that would not benefit would then be at a competitive disadvantage. Such legislation puts Congress in the position of picking winners and losers. I was joined by some of my colleagues in communicating to the House leadership and the conferees our concern over the direction the pension legislation was headed. We urged that, at the very least, companies that would benefit by the special provisions should be subject to an application and review process before being approved for relief. We also suggested that if any relief was granted, then it should be reduced in order to leave taxpayers less exposed. What came out of conference, however, was even worse. The few companies who will benefit from the special provisions included in the legislation will be allowed to forego more of the payments to their pension plans than had been proposed prior to the conference. These narrow waivers are expected to amount to about $1.6 billion in relief for these few companies. If this measure is necessary to keep these companies going, they must be dangerously close to failure as it is. Forgiving their deficit reduction contributions may only grow the size of their liabilities and delay inevitable failure. I am concerned that there we may be setting taxpayers up for a bailout like that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s. I am aware of the need for a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate, and I support such a replacement. I understand that the broader business community supports this legislation. But I cannot support this conference report because of the special interest provisions included in it. While providing short-term relief for a few companies, this legislation may result in a taxpayer bailout that will hurt all taxpayers and result in much more long-term damage.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I respect the chairman and the ranking member. I would simply say that we are not potted plants here; and as a Member who is not a potted plant, I know when my State is not being dealt with fairly. My State, the State of Florida, the State of Texas, the State of California, many other donor States are not being dealt with fairly. I am not saying that no Member should be able to earmark, and so this notion that Members cannot designate projects is not what I am saying. I am simply saying, if you do, then take that out of your own State's formula. Do not take it from other States. If you have the right to earmark, you should not have the right to earmark funds for Arizona to be spent elsewhere.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, growing up in a family of 11 kids, 10 brothers and sisters, I learned the economic principle of scarcity pretty early. We always had enough food, meat and potatoes, to go around but there was rarely enough dessert. Every Sunday, no matter how large the family got, we had one half gallon of ice cream to split amongst us. One particular Sunday, as the ice cream was being scooped by one brother, we always had at least two monitors to make sure each portion was equal, I noticed that my brother made the scoops, the monitors were distracted for a minute, and he carefully slid the half gallon that was supposed to be empty under the kitchen sink. I rushed over there and found that he had left about a quarter of the carton full and he was going to retrieve it later. I have discovered that things like that happen all the time around here in Congress, in one area in particular, the highway bill, where, instead of leaving a portion at the bottom not to be distributed equally, it is taken right off the top. The process is called earmarking. It is a process that is getting worse and worse and worse around here. In 1982, there were a total of 10 earmarks in the highway authorization bill. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed the bill because there were 152 earmarks, something he thought was way out of line. Six years later, there were 500 earmarks in the bill; six years later, 1,800; and now we are up to, I think, just north of 3,000 earmarks in the bill and climbing. What that means is that portions are taken off the top and not distributed to the other States, like Arizona, like Georgia, like Florida, like Texas, like California. For years, we have been shorted from what we ought to receive in the formula. Let me just give an example. I should say that this is just in the authorization process. We have not even gotten to appropriations this year. There will likely be hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand more transportation earmarks in the appropriation bill. Last year, for example, in the omnibus bill that was passed in December, there were over 600 earmarks relating to transportation, a total of $1.4 billion. That is $1.4 billion that comes off the top, that is not distributed by formula to the States, one of those States being Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to do business like this. We cannot. My amendment is simple. It simply says that the amount the States received in high-priority programs would be subtracted from their formula totals of the surface transportation program. This prevents the minimum guarantee program from backfilling what comes out. What it does essentially is says that if you want an earmark, that is fine, but that earmark should come out of your own State's formula, not everyone else's. I am not saying at all that nobody ought to get earmarks. A lot of people complain legitimately that some governors or some State officials do not fund what they ought to fund, that they ignore Republican districts, they ignore Democrat districts and do not spread the money equally around. This is not saying that Members cannot get earmarks. All it is saying is that you ought to discuss that among your own delegation from your State and decide, do we want to put money here or there or should we give the State more flexibility to spend money on its priorities. That, in essence, is the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, as we debate the transportation reauthorization bill today, I think we need to abide by one simple principle: solutions for transportation safety, congestion, and pollution and transit should not be determined by which Members face difficult campaigns or which Members sit on influential committees. These kinds of determinations are being made in H.R. 3550 unless we make some changes to it. This approach to funding is inconsistent, especially with the stated objectives of the bill, and it results in inequitable distribution of funding between the States. As we debate the reauthorization, we need to consider solutions that give States discretion and flexibility in the use of funding, financed by their own citizens and highway users. I have an amendment before the House today that would neither strike nor prevent Members from securing earmarks for their district. What it would do, however, is prevent those States that benefit disproportionately from earmarks from drawing funding away from States that, in spite of a few earmarks, end up faring much worse. I urge support for this amendment.