Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, what the Flake amendment does, and I listened to the discussion about the merits of the bill, and I am compelled that we do need to do this. This is a good bill. We need to give NASA the flexibility they need to hire good people and retain them. I am not questioning the merits of the bill at all. I am simply saying in this era of big deficits and the spending problem that we have in Congress, we ought to ensure that any new authorization is met with some spending restraint on the other side and we pay for the money we are spending here. The Flake amendment would require NASA to submit to Congress a plan to offset new spending authorized under this legislation with budget reductions elsewhere in the NASA budget. The Flake amendment gives NASA the flexibility to choose which budget request to target for reduction. We are not telling them how to do it; we are simply saying please match this funding with similar reductions. The report that NASA must give when they get this money must demonstrate that spending requests for provisions authorized under this legislation are matched with corresponding budget cuts in other specific budget items. Adoption of the Flake amendment gives Congress the opportunity to ensure that new spending authorization for must-have workplace flexibility is met with spending restraints. The CBO estimates that S. 610 will cost $80 million over the 2004- 2008 period. There has been no indication that the new authorized spending will be prioritized against the spending accounts. While the workforce flexibility afforded to NASA under S. 610 is positive and market-oriented, NASA should identify areas of spending that can be reduced to offset new costs. In November, Congress passed a $400 billion Medicare bill. The Senate passed the final omnibus package which totaled over $370 billion in spending. That has been signed into law. Two days ago, the CBO announced that we have a $477 billion projected deficit. If you include draws on the trust fund, that brings it all of the way up to just under $700 billion for the coming year. It is time to exercise some fiscal restraint. That is what the Flake amendment is designed to do.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is not unreasonable to ask to go back to the Senate. I think Members agree this flexibility is needed. It is market-oriented. We need to make sure that NASA retains and hires good people. Many of my colleagues that I have spoken to in the last day on this subject have indicated that they were informed this would not cost anything, this would be totally from NASA's own budget. Yet the CBO estimates that it will cost $80 billion over the next 4 years. If that is the case that it draws only on NASA's budget, if it is the case that it does not cost anything, I would submit that there is no problem here, that it does not increase spending. So all our amendment says is to the degree it does, if it is going to increase spending and if we are going to have to authorize new spending, it should be matched with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget. The NASA budget for personnel is $2 billion a year. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask for those kinds of spending reductions.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent from the Chamber today during rollcall votes 2, 3, 4, and 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 2, ``yea'' on rollcall 3, ``yea'' on rollcall 4, and ``yea'' on rollcall 5.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in reluctant opposition to this rule and to this bill. We, in the House, have specific rules against approving spending that is not approved in either a House or Senate version and then comes to the floor in a bill like this, yet we routinely waive the rules and waive all points of order against this kind of spending. This is to our shame. I am ashamed that we are doing this today. This bill has about, at last count I believe about 7,000 earmarks within it for particular spending items. Under Republican control, we have gone, I believe, in 1994 from about 2,000 earmarks per year to over 10,000, and that is not the way that we ought to conduct business. I think that it is going to come back to bite us. It well ought to. With that, I think that we ought to oppose this rule because it goes against procedures that we have established in the House, and we ought to vote against the bill as well.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the omnibus bill that we will be passing later today, and I rise with great reluctance to criticize the bill. This Republican Congress has increased the number of earmarks in bills by about four-fold in just the past couple of years. This is no way to do business. We speak a great deal and at great length in this House about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal agencies in the way we spend money with the Federal Government. I would suggest that we look no further than the earmarks that we propose in this bill and other spending bills to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Most of these earmarks simply benefit one Member, one project. It is typically referred to as pork-barrel spending. We as Republicans have decried this practice for years, and now we seem to have embraced it. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to turn a different direction and realize that if we want fiscal restraint, if we want to return to balanced budgets, then we have to do something about this kind of spending.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great reluctance today to oppose this bill, particularly because of the respect I have for the chairman and for the main sponsor on the Democratic side. I certainly support the goals of this legislation, but I think it is appropriate to ask, why is Congress authorizing $100 million in Federal funds to operate a State program? There seems to me to be no reason for Congress to finance the State public defender system. Basic precepts of federalism dictate that each level of government should finance its own operations. Once States become accustomed to and budget for Federal funds, they can never reject the money, and Federal funding inevitably comes with increased Federal strings. We have seen that in every other area, most notably public education. In the long run, States risk losing control over their own public defender programs. I believe there is no reason to start down that path. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), who has direct experience in the State Attorney General's office.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona. (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in condemning Syria for its support for international terrorism. I do not support the Syria Accountability Act, however, because I believe it limits the President's options in dealing with Syria at a time when he should have flexibility. Furthermore, I do not believe that unilateral economic sanctions are effective--especially against regimes who are only concerned with remaining in power. Such regimes will still have food on their plates and roofs over their heads while the ordinary people of their countries are left to suffer even more.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, today I voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 3161. While acknowledging my opposition to this bill is unpopular--even in my own household--I believe I voted correctly. Telemarketing calls bother me as much as the next person and I understand the desire to prohibit them. But I do not believe that asking the government to take care of this problem is the answer. New products are now on the market (Caller ID, voice mail systems, answering machines, Privacy Director, Call Reject, etc.) that inhibit the activity of telemarketers, and states are passing their own laws to address this issue. In fact, Arizona began enforcing the state's own telemarketing restrictions on October 1, 2003. Most people know that H.R. 3161 provided authority to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to implement and enforce a national do-not-call registry. What many do not know, however, is that the bill allows government bureaucrats to pick and choose which calls consumers can block. It is not surprising that consumers cannot sign up to not be bothered by politicians. I would be willing to bet that consumers will find those calls to be just as annoying as any others. When government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls. That's what the First Amendment means. I consistently vote against additional federal regulations. Granting the FTC additional authority to further regulate on this matter, however popular, would be inconsistent with my record.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me say I have never heard so much concern for the rich coming from the other side of the aisle here. I just am overwhelmed with the concern that is over there that people like Arnold Schwarzenegger and others will not be able to afford prescription drugs without Government help. And if you are concerned about the health of Medicare as a program, do not go with this program as it is outlined without a means test, because this will bankrupt it, and it will all be gone unless we do something to bring down the cost, and the best way is to ensure that it is targeted to those who need it most, not the wealthy who do not need it. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), who has been a leader on this issue. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to make this motion to instruct the conferees. We are dealing now with a prescription drug benefit to Medicare that is simply uncontrollable in terms of cost. We believe that we ought to control that cost by means-testing the program. There is no reason in the world why we ought to be paying the prescription drug benefits for the wealthiest in society, the Bill Gates, the Barbra Streisands, the Ted Turners, the Warren Buffetts. Think about this: With this prescription drug benefit that is part of Medicare if this bill passes, we will be paying the prescription drug benefits for the wealthiest in society. Let me tell you what that means. The current drug bills are estimated to cost $400 billion over the next 10 years. That is $400 billion over the next 10 years to add this prescription drug benefit. If we look beyond that 10-year window into the next 10-year window, then it gets even uglier. From the years 2014 through 2023, that 10-year period after the first 10-year period, the drug benefit is projected to cost $772 billion. So $400 billion the first 10 years, $772 billion the next 10 years. That rapid growth rate will continue all the way through the year 2030. In fact, what it means in the year 2030, let me just give you a scenario here. Married couple, 40 years old. This strikes home because I am 40 years old myself. This particular couple already pays 15.3 percent in payroll tax to fund current Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries. Because the payroll tax will not provide enough revenue to fund Medicare for all retirees, this couple also faces $39,894 in additional taxes between now and their own retirement in the year 2030. Think about that. Because we are going to run out of money, because we do not have enough money in the Treasury and in trust fund accounts to fund this, one couple between now and 2030 will have to pay $39,894. The proposed prescription Medicare drug benefit will make up, of this amount, $16,127. Sixteen thousand extra dollars between now and 2030 will be paid simply to pay this prescription drug benefit, largely because it is an entitlement. It is an entitlement. That means that we give the benefit to everyone. Entitlements are out of control simply because you set a level for benefits and you say whoever enrolls will get that benefit and they are labeled uncontrollable in terms of what the costs are. We simply cannot control it, because it depends on how many are eligible and what the benefit levels are, and we are setting the benefit levels here, and so we have that kind of cost to look forward to. When we look back to 1965 when Medicare was created, it was projected to cost $10 billion annually. It is costing $244 billion annually at the moment. That is on a pace to double over the next decade, and then it will expand exponentially beyond that time when the baby boomers start to retire. We simply cannot afford to do what we are proposing to do. When we look at what we are proposing to do as well, it does not make any sense, given how demographics have played out. Census Bureau figures show that poverty among the elderly has plummeted. In 1959, 35 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to just 10 percent today. That is a reversal in relative position of the general population. In 1959, 35 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to 25 percent of the general population. In 2001, 10 percent of the elderly lived in poverty compared to 12 percent of the overall U.S. population. And what this means is that we are shifting a huge financial burden to those who can least afford it, the young, from those who can most afford it at this point, the elderly. That is simply unwarranted. During the break when I was home, I ran into a gentleman who was in his 80's and he pulled me aside and said, ``I know you are a Member of Congress.'' He said, ``Let me tell you, my wife is ill, and we spend about $600 per month for prescription drug benefits.'' And I thought, oh, no, here it comes. He is going to say get back here and vote for that bill. Instead, he said exactly the opposite. He said, ``We can afford it. Don't you dare saddle that burden on my grandkids.'' And I know there are a lot of people who feel the same way, a lot of people who say there is no way we should saddle this burden on generations to come. It is simply unconscionable. When I announced my intention to vote against the House version of the bill in its present form, I gave a quote from George Washington after the Constitutional Convention. He simply said, when asked, when he was defending the kind of government that was set up, when it was a different kind of government than the people expected he said, we cannot do what we know is wrong; otherwise, how will we defend our work later? In particular, he said, ``If to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disprove, how can we afterwards defend our work?'' We as, Members of Congress, know the costs. We know the history of Medicare. We know what this new benefit will cost. And unless we means test it, unless we make sure that it is not a benefit for everyone, that it is simply targeted to those who can least afford it now rather than everyone, we know what will happen. We know that we cannot afford it. We know that future generations and ourselves, our own kids are not going to be able to afford the tax burden to sustain it. We know that it will make an already insolvent situation for Medicare insolvent all that much faster. So we simply cannot afford to go on the road we are going. And I think we ought to heed George Washington's word and do what we know is right, regardless of what we think the people want, regardless of what the last poll says, regardless of what we hear at one meeting or this one. We are sent here to do what we know is right, and we know that this will bankrupt us. So we know we have to take a different course, and I would submit that the course we need to take is to means test it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out I am a little confused myself in terms of what is rich. On the other side of the aisle, they argued throughout the entire tax debate that the same middle-class individual, $60,000, $70,000, $50,000, are not going to benefit from taxes for the rich? What is rich? We set no standard in this motion to instruct. We simply say that we ought to have a means test. We have not pegged it at $60,000, at $70,000, $200,000, $300,000. We are simply establishing the principle that it should not be an entitlement. If people are worried about it being a slippery slope, set it at $200,000. By the time that slippery slope ends, someone starting at 65 surely will not be around to collect. But set it somewhere, establish a principle that we should not be paying prescription drug benefits for the Bill Gates of the world. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that our motion to instruct contains no income figures or thresholds at all. The $60,000 figure that is cited is simply part of the Republican base bill that was passed in this House. We are simply establishing the principle of means testing. Now, I would suppose that if that was set at $100,000 or $200,000 or $300,000 or $400,000 or a half a million dollars, the cry from the other side of the aisle would be the same: do not means test it. Do not means test it. We want an entitlement. And that is what we are fighting about here. We simply want to say that we ought to target those who need it most, not spread it out so we bankrupt the system too quickly. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I thank those who have participated in this debate. I want all Americans to know that tonight they will all get a big raise. It seems that tomorrow that those on the other side of the aisle will come back and talk about how those who are earning $60,000 who are decidedly middle class when it refers to this bill, will be rich when it comes to talking about tax cuts. Which is it? Which is it? I want to remind my colleagues here, again, that this motion to instruct says nothing about which income levels we ought to set this at. It simply says we ought establish the principle that this be targeted at those who need it the most. And this debate about whether or not we ought to look at the income of older Americans will probably be moot in another 30 years because, as I pointed out before, someone 40 years old today, like me, will spend, like me and my family, will spend about $40,000 in additional taxes, in additional taxes over the next 30 years. We will spend $40,000 in additional taxes because the payroll tax does not provide enough revenue to fund Medicare. This adds fuel to the fire. This simply blows it up out of control. Now, anybody who has watched my voting record, or the voting record of my colleague from Indiana (Mr. Pence), knows that we are not proud of our fiscal restraint here in this House, be it Republican or Democrat, over the years. But we ought to look at this program right now. This is what is up for debate. We cannot say, well, Republicans have grown the deficit or Democrats have done this, so it is okay. We are going to take this program, and we are going to blow it up over the next 30 years and even greater beyond that. That is simply not acceptable. We know better than to do that. If we are spending $40,000 in additional taxes for the average family of four over the next 30 years, we will not have a debate about whether to means test anything in the year 2030 because too few seniors will have enough disposable income to actually fund it. We will all be dependent on Government. Maybe the other side of the aisle would like that, but I do not. I think people ought to have the ability to save for themselves. There is a difference between tax cuts and benefits like this. Tax cuts, you are taking money that somebody has paid, or will pay, in taxes and saying, You do not have to pay that any more. This benefit is taking from people who have paid in already, and you are taking that money and saying, We will give it to this person, instead of giving it back to you who earned it. Madam Speaker, I would conclude and simply urge support for this motion to instruct. Let us do what is right. Let us do what we know is right.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourn today, it adjourn to meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday, October 3, 2003.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the private calendar be dispensed with on Tuesday, October 7, 2003.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Friday, October 3, 2003, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 7, 2003, for morning hour debates.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Arizona for arranging this special order and for all of those who have spoken. The most important part about this tonight, I think, is to hear from so many who have been there, and given what we hear in the news, I think that is particularly important because just watching the news channels, we simply do not get a good picture of what is going on there. We get a much better feel from those who have just returned. So I have appreciated this opportunity to hear that. And I appreciated the concern that was raised before that not only do we make sure that we do not impose more debt on the Iraqi people, but that we ensure that the other debt that is held already is forgiven. It is extremely important. When we look, estimates vary anywhere from $60 billion to $150 billion and some more as far as outstanding debt. A lot of it is held by countries that are friendly with us and are on our side here, most of them, in fact. And I would hope that the administration, and I know they will, would exert all the pressure they can on these countries to make sure that we are not the only ones who are leaving Iraq debt-free and with an opportunity to grow and progress, that they have a responsibility to do so as well. I think if we want the support of Americans in this endeavor, we have to make sure that our partners around the world participate in this regard as well. I would also encourage the administration to do what it can to exercise with us in Congress, and I think we need to remind our colleagues continually here to exercise fiscal restraint domestically. The primary function of the Federal Government, we all know, is national security. That is our first and primary function. This is important, what we are doing here. And we need, because of the situation we are in with a large deficit and a big debt, to make sure that we husband our resources properly and spend them where we need to and where the Federal Government has priority, and that is in our national defense. Again, I just want to thank my colleague from Arizona and all of the others who have appeared so far, and I just appreciate learning more myself and also to lend my support to this effort.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XXII, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct on H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Flake of Arizona moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1 be instructed within the scope of conference to include income thresholds on coverage.