Glad to get such a high score from Citizens Against Government Waste. But the last paragraph in this blog is totally wrong. Rep. Flake's amendments absolutely lower government spending by removing the total cost of a specific earmark from the bill.

See the Salt Lake Tribune for more details.

Friday, July 30, 2010 - 3:02pm

Utah U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz has enjoyed success in big-time sports under pressure. In the 1988 Freedom Bowl, Chaffetz calmly kicked two field goals in the final minutes of the game to lead the BYU Cougars to a 20-17 win over the Colorado Buffaloes.

So, while we may not agree with Republican Chaffetz on every issue, we respect his opinions on sports. And we agree with Chaffetz that congressional resolutions related to sports have gotten way out of hand. We're glad the freshman congressman has decided to vote against all symbolic sports resolutions, and we hope colleagues will follow his lead.

"It's an absolute embarrassment," Chaffetz said on the House floor before opposing a resolution honoring the start of the racing season at Saratoga race course in New York. He's right. What in the heck does that have to do with running our country? It's ridiculous, particularly when we are locked in partisan deadlock and squabbles over crucial issues such as health care, the environment, the war on terror, immigration, financial reform, etc. What need is there to honor a race course or the Penn State women's volleyball team, or even Real Salt Lake soccer club's 2009 league championship?

Chaffetz took heat from some lawmakers, who were angered at his stance. They pointed out, correctly, that Chaffetz sponsored a 2009 resolution saluting RSL for its soccer championship. Chaffetz admitted his past complicity in the resolution game, but said he now realizes they are a waste of time.

The Utah congressman's history as an athlete of note with the BYU football team should prompt his colleagues to listen carefully to his arguments. The sheer number of resolutions passed in Congress have diminished the impact and importance of a congressional resolution. It's become more like a souvenir for participants and fans of a team, person or event than a notable mark of historical importance. And sports, no matter how seriously millions of us follow games, is not important enough to waste valuable congressional time on.

There may be a solution. Chaffetz and Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Penn., have suggested a bill at the end of the year for all sports resolutions to be honored in one take. Frankly, we don't need any of them. But if Congress can't control its need to have them, this is a good compromise to stop the time-wasting.

Read article in its entirety at the Standard-Examiner.

Friday, July 2, 2010

The time has come to make tough decisions. I know it. My constituents know it. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know it. Unfortunately, House leadership has not gotten the message.

Their failure to propose a budget resolution for 2011 or to allow an open amendment process underscores some of my deepest concerns. There seems to be a complete disconnect between those who make the decisions and those who pay for them. While Americans across the political spectrum call on the government to cut back, Congress has continued to tax, spend and borrow. While Americans ask us to work together, Congress has continued to shut down debate.

This month, Congress should be voting on a budget resolution that creates the framework for next year's spending decisions. Since 1974, the House has never failed to offer such a resolution. Yet last week, we learned that leadership has no intention of crafting one.

I believe managing the federal budget is the most fundamental function of the House of Representatives. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle agree in principle. Four years ago, when Republicans controlled the House, Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., said, "If you can't budget, you can't govern." Similarly, then-Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., proclaimed that enacting a budget was "the most basic responsibility of governing." Yet today, as Reps. Hoyer and Spratt control the budget process, they refuse to offer a budget resolution.

If we're going to confront the problems our overspending has created, we have to make tough decisions. That means we have to be willing to talk candidly, even in an election year, about the amount of red ink we've created on the federal balance sheets.

I didn't create this mess in Washington, but I was sent here to help clean it up. Unfortunately, overwhelming majorities on one side of the aisle have led to a stronghold on the process. Changes in the House rules for the 111th Congress have totally eliminated the ability of the minority party to offer an amendment on the floor.

If the House leadership refuses to listen to the American people — or even to the deficit hawks within their own party — what recourse do we have? In the past, bills could be amended and improved. But today, only the Rules Committee decides which amendments will be heard.

As a freshman, I have never yet seen an open rule that would allow anyone to amend a bill. Never in history has the legislative process been so tightly controlled. For the duration of the 111th Congress, there has never been an open rule in the House. Democratic leadership should be embarrassed. Congress should be the world's greatest deliberative body. There is no excuse for shortchanging the American people by shutting down debate.

We must do our fundamental job. The parameters for next year's spending decisions should be open and transparent. We must talk about how to address the mess our irresponsible spending has created. The American people have demanded it. The Congress must deliver it. If Congress is unwilling to do its job, then the American people must hold them accountable.

See the Deseret News Article in its entirety here.

A congressman is crying foul over House resolutions honoring sports heroes and championships teams -- and he's urging his fellow lawmakers to do the same.

Freshman Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, is voting "present" on any sports resolutions that come to the House floor in protest of a time-honored tradition that he says has gone too far.

"It finally just got to be enough. It's absurd," Chaffetz told FoxNews.com, arguing that there is "no rhyme or reason" to the resolutions.

"Does (golfer) Phil Mickelson need a pat on the back," he said, adding that he once had to congratulate the Los Angeles Lakers on its championship run last season. "Does Kobe Bryant know where D.C. is?"

Chaffetz estimated that the House passes about three to four sports resolutions per week and it's rare for lawmakers to ever vote against them.

Some lawmakers are calling Chaffetz a sore sport.

"Any team he represents will never earn a resolution," Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., joked to Congressional Quarterly, which first reported the standoff.

Chaffetz's argument, however, is winning bipartisan support.

Six lawmakers joined Chaffetz in voting "present" on a resolution last week honoring the University of Texas men's swimming and diving team. Seven withheld their vote on honoring Mickelson's victory after this year's Master's tournament.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., has been voting "present" on the sports resolutions for at least a year, a spokesman for Oberstar told FoxNews.com,

"He just looks at the resolution and says it's championship. Shouldn't the championship be its own reward?" spokesman John Schadl said, adding that Oberstar doesn't believe champions like Mickelson are hoping Congress gives them a resolution.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., said his "present" votes on sports resolutions are not inspired by Chaffetz.

"We have problems in this country we must address, not the least of which is creating jobs," DeFazio said in a written statement. "I just don't think we should wasting our time on hortatory resolutions."

Chaffetz, who played football for BYU, said the "boiling point" for him came in March when House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., introduced a resolution honoring the University of Maryland Terrapins men's basketball team.

"They had not even selected the 64 teams for March Madness and we're recognizing the University of Maryland?" he asked.

Hoyer's office did not return calls seeking comment.

Chaffetz called the resolutions a waste of time and money, noting that the votes can take up to 30 minutes and requires weighty documentation and work from clerks and staffers.

"I don't know how much it costs, but it ain't cheap," he said.

Chaffetz said Congress should be paying attention to other matters.

"I don't see us doing resolutions supporting spelling bee champions and people making advances in medicine," he said, adding that he's going to start introducing those types of measures.

The last time Congress introduced a resolution honoring a spelling bee champion was in 2004, although lawmakers do offer congratulations to spelling champions in the congressional record, according to the office of the House historian.

"We're not producing a budget," Chaffetz said, referring to the increasing likelihood that the House Democratic leadership will not pass a budget resolution for the coming fiscal year. "Major things are not going on, and we're recognizing the University of Texas men's diving team? Come on."

See foxnews.com for further analysis

See also ABC News 4, Salt Lake for additional details

Faced with a choice between doing the right thing and doing the easy thing, voters want Congress to do what is right. Unfortunately, too many lawmakers believe cutting federal spending, particularly within their own districts, is an impossible task. The dilemma for Members of Congress is the false choice between shortchanging constituents and shortchanging America.

Running for office in 2008, I told the people of Utah I would seek to change the way we do business in Washington, D.C. Nowhere has that promise ruffled more feathers than in the fight over federal earmarking. On this crucial issue, most lawmakers have taken an all-or-nothing approach to the problem.

Earmarks—lawmaker-requested spending provisions that bypass the merit-based funding process—are a beloved institution in the United States Congress. They enable lawmakers to bring home federal dollars, take credit for generating jobs in their districts, pick winners and losers, and elicit campaign contributions. Local elected officials also love earmarks. Mayors and county commissioners get the credit for bringing a new project to their community without the responsibility of having to pay for it.

Despite a record $12-trillion debt, Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that total spending on earmarks remained unchanged in 2010 (Alarkon, 2010). Renovations of historic buildings, theaters, and music halls will run taxpayers millions of dollars this year—even as the unemployment rate hovers around 10%. Although we are projected to soon be spending more than $1 billion a day in interest on our debt, Congress still found $250,000 for a farmers market in Monroe County, Kentucky. They found $750,000 for the World Food Prize in Des Moines, Iowa (FY10 Earmarks Database, 2010). These are just two of the more than 10,000 earmarks that I voted against in the 2010 federal budget.

Lawmakers who wish to reform the process have traditionally been left with two untenable choices: shortchange America by participating in a corrupt system, or shortchange constituents by refusing to bring back any of the dollars paid by taxpayers. This dilemma makes earmark reform seem impossible.

That’s why I opted to chart an alternative path. The House is charged with a constitutional duty, role, and responsibility to appropriate funds. But how we do it is paramount because people have lost confidence in Congress. Not every earmark is abusive. For example, nearly 70% of my state’s lands are under federal ownership. There are legitimate reasons to seek federal dollars to handle costs associated with those lands. Yet the people of Utah didn’t send me here to fire up the favor factory. I promised voters I would not ask for an earmark until there was greater openness, transparency, and reform. I promised not to ask for an appropriations earmark in 2009 or 2010. I am doing the same for the FY 2011 budget. I promised I would work to raise the bar and forge a new path.

In August 2009, after months of public input and discussions, I introduced guidelines (Chaffetz, 2009) that seek to distinguish between the legitimate federal projects the Constitution empowers us to support and those projects which fall outside of our scope. With little political will in Congress to address earmark abuses in a meaningful way, I felt the best way forward was to start with a single office—mine.

Four simple changes to the earmark process would eliminate billions of dollars in potentially wasteful spending without compromising the Constitutional obligation of Congress to authorize legitimate federal projects. First, we must eliminate earmarks awarded to for-profit companies. Second, we should require a federal nexus be shown before projects can be funded. Third, we must commit to provide greater transparency. Finally, in the 112th Congress, I have called for a policy that would exclude those serving on the Appropriations Committee from requesting earmarks.

While some argue that earmarks represent a small fraction of the federal budget, this fraction is perhaps the easiest 1% to address. When Congress is finally brave enough to deal with entitlement reform, the American people will want to know that Congress cut its own entitlements before we sought to cut theirs.

See the article in its entirety.

Washington - The Bureau of Land Management would have to sell off some 132,000 acres of public land in Utah and more than 3 million acres total in the West under legislation Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced Wednesday.

The Utah Republican's measure orders the Interior secretary to sell all lands identified as excess in a 1997 study by the Clinton administration and sets up a process for 10 states to recoup those parcels for private development.

"There's no doubt in my mind there are certain areas worth saving and protecting and designating as wilderness," Chaffetz said, "but there are some parts of the land that really serve no public purpose, so let's sell them back to private hands."

The BLM is the largest land-holder in the state, managing some 23 million acres, and local officials argue that the huge swaths of public lands shrink their tax base and deprive residents of use of hills and fields they've historically used.

All money from the sale of the public lands would be used to pay off the national debt under Chaffetz's bill.

The BLM declined comment on the bill until it had time to review the legislation and is asked to testify on Capitol Hill about the measure.

See the article in its entirety at sltrib.com.

See also the Daily Herald for additional analysis.