Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak in support of legislation reforming the MTB, or the miscellaneous tariff benefit process. I am pleased to help this legislation advance. It is my hope that this bill will soon be on the President's desk. As many will remember, a dark cloud hung over the Congress with regard to the practice of earmarking in early 2009.

The feeding at the earmark trough had long since expanded to the point of ridiculousness. Earmarks exploded to their annual record of $29 billion in 2006. They were long a problem before that, but it had become much, much worse at that time.

Congress had become accustomed to powerful Members getting a large chunk of the earmark pie, and rank-and-file Members would fight over the scraps.

We saw less and less true oversight as more and more spending was doled out in congressional back rooms. It wasn't just spending on earmarks that we didn't have good oversight on. It was the entire Federal budget. It was largely a problem because so much of our time in Congress was spent doling out earmarks and making sure that every Member got a few and that they were scattered around. We really gave up on the oversight that we should have been conducting.

At the same time, earmarks opponents had ample opportunity to shame the process by highlighting bridges to nowhere, teapot museums, and the National Cowgirl Hall of Fame, for example, receiving these earmarks.

But attention on the issue focused sharply in early February of 2009, when reports surfaced that a lobbying firm specializing in defense appropriations had been raided by the FBI. The New York Times noted that the firm ``set up shop at the busy intersection between political fund-raising and taxpayer spending, directing tens of millions of dollars in contributions to lawmakers, while steering hundreds of millions of dollars in earmarks contracts back to his clients.''

The cloud over Congress darkened even further with suggestions of pay-to-play straw-man contributions, the reimbursing of employees for political contributions, and pressuring others for political giving. In quick succession, both the House and the Senate rightly put in place a moratorium over all earmarks, a ban that has remained intact ever since.

While we gladly said goodbye to the bad old days of congressional porkbarrel spending, we soon found out that there were several things that Congress only knew how to do through earmarking. This included the so-called miscellaneous tariff benefits, or MTBs.

MTBs are provisions that, when signed into law, provide tariff and duty relief for imports that are not domestically produced. The historic MTB process benefited from a consensus-driven process administered by the International Trade Commission that, for the most part, set it apart from the much ridiculed Federal largesse doled out by earmarking. Unfortunately, the original process also required that an original bill be introduced by a Member of Congress--a specific bill for a specific tariff reduction, often to benefit a particular for- profit company.

I have long held that doing away with these individual bills and establishing an MTB process that relies on the ITC to accept and review proposals over which Congress has final say would be preferable. Such an approach would both comply with the earmark moratorium while providing taxpayers a measure of confidence that undue influence was not being inappropriately exerted.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with both House and Senate leadership and with members of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means on moving such a proposal forward.

To be clear, my goals of being an original cosponsor of the American Manufacturing Competitiveness Act of 2016 and vocally supporting moving forward with legislation reforming the MTB process is twofold. First and foremost, cutting tariffs is the right thing to do. In fact, I would support permanent tariff reductions as a means of furthering the benefits of free trade and lightening the burden on U.S. producers. In addition, the longer we go without being able to move forward with MTB bills, the more threatened the earmark moratorium is.

I wish I could say that all Members of Congress are willing to permanently walk away from this wayward process of congressional earmarking, but that is not the case. Those wishing to go back to the bad old days will use any excuse to support ending the earmark moratorium.

Reforming the MTB process not only provides a path for much needed tariff relief and a modicum of confidence for taxpayers, but it is also good for the long-term survival of the earmark moratorium.

I am pleased to be a part of this effort moving forward. The House companion legislation passed with overwhelming support. I believe there were only two dissenting votes in the House. It is my hope that the Senate will soon follow suit.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source