Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chair, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from North Dakota to offer amendment No. 12 made in order by the rule providing for consideration of H.R. 3409.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair, and I'll immediately yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Berg).

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma, the gentleman from Arizona, and the gentleman from North Dakota for cosponsoring this amendment. As the gentleman mentioned, what we are talking about here is regional haze. This is not a health issue. It is a visibility issue. As for the implementation plans being considered by the Federal Government, let me just take the Navajo Generating Station in northern Arizona. What is being considered is likely an SCR fix, selective catalytic reduction, which would cost $1.1 billion. That would cause the owners of the Navajo Generating Station to simply shut it down. They can't produce economically with these kinds of burdens. The benefits of that, we are told by the EPA, are that there would be no perceptible improvements in visibility--none. Manmade sources make up, at best, 5 percent of all regional haze in Arizona. This is 5 percent at best. So you require a fix costing $1.1 billion. For what? For no perceptible improvement in visibility at the Grand Canyon. Why are we doing this? The costs to Arizona are immense: 85 percent of the power generated-- or used--by the Central Arizona Project to pump water for farmland and whatever else comes from the Navajo Generating Station. If you shut down that station, farmers will have to go back to groundwater where they can. What does that do? That depletes our underground resources, causing environmental havoc. This is madness what is going on. What this amendment seeks to do is to force the EPA to actually follow the law. The law requires that the EPA set the standard, and then the State offers a State Implementation Plan, or a SIP. The problem is that the EPA is ignoring what the State submits and then entering into negotiations with third-party groups--environmental groups or others--and ignoring the State. We can't allow this to happen anymore. That's why this is a good amendment. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of the STEM Jobs Act. For the past three Congresses, I've worked on this issue with the introduction of the STAPLE Act, which would do much the same as this bill does, as well as support for other pieces of legislation that do what this piece of legislation does, which is allow those who are trained in our universities here to contribute to the U.S. economy. We all know that it's not government that creates jobs, that the job of government is to enable the private sector to create jobs. I can think of no better way than to allow the private sector access to the brainpower and knowledge of those who have been trained in our universities to stay here and help create jobs. This is a good piece of legislation. It's one of the few pieces of immigration legislation that has bipartisan support. I urge its adoption.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and celebrate the 90th birthday of Mrs. Mary Lydia Matta Garza, of Mesa, Arizona. Known to her friends and family as Mary Lou, Mrs. Matta Garza is perhaps best known in the Mesa community as the proud owner and operator of the former Matta's Restaurant. Now a Mesa landmark, Matta's was opened in 1953 by Mrs. Matta Garza and her husband, Manuel. Mary Lou and Manuel opened Matta's with only $1,000, and grossed a mere $25 a day in those first few weeks and months of getting their small business off the ground. Matta's opened as a small storefront, but its family-oriented traditions and atmosphere, and of course, its great dishes based on Matta family recipes passed down for generations, drew larger and larger crowds. The Matta's following grew so much that in 1969, Mary Lou and Maneul were able to expand Matta's home, adding enough seating for 350 people. Mrs. Matta Garza and her family decided to close Matta's in 2008 after 55 years of serving quality Latin fare. But despite its closed doors, its traditions, and of course, its great food, now live on at Matta's Mexican Grill in East Mesa and Matta's Grill and Cantina in Northwest Mesa, which are owned and operated by Mrs. Matta Garza's grandchildren. While Matta's was becoming a successful business and Mesa landmark, Mrs. Matta Garza--in between helping to run the restaurant and raise six children--made many important contributions to the Mesa community and the state of Arizona. She launched the Mesa-Phoenix and Flagstaff councils of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC, and served as LULAC's regional governor. She volunteered her time at the Southside Hospital of Mesa and Desert Samaritan Hospital and served as a board member and treasurer of the Mesa Chamber of Commerce. For her many efforts to give back, Mrs. Matta Garza was named Mesa Woman of the Year in 1973. In her 90 years, Mary Lou Matta Garza raised her six children, saw the birth of 21 grand children, 23 great grandchildren, and even one great-great grandchild. She ran a profitable business that became a pillar of Mesa. And she gave much of her time, effort, and love to her community. Mrs. Matta Garza is fond of saying that giving back in this way will ``reward you tenfold.'' As a Mesa resident, I feel rewarded to have had her as an integral part of our community. Thank you, Mrs. Matta Garza, for all you have done and continue to do for our town and our home.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, Arizonans were greeted this morning with the unwelcome news that Cochise County Sheriff, Larry Dever, passed away last night in an automobile accident. The great State of Arizona is in a state of mourning. Respected throughout the State as a leader and a lawman, Sheriff Dever was also recognized nationally as an authority on immigration and border issues. Every Senator, Congressman, Governor, and local official who wanted to know what was really happening in southern Arizona sought Sheriff Dever's counsel. No meetings or briefings, Powerpoint presentations, flip charts, or easels could compare to a couple of hours in the passenger seat of his pickup truck, driving bumpy roads, one-on-one with the sheriff. To us, Sheriff Dever was the consummate lawman: tough, fair-minded, straight shooting, no nonsense. To his wife, Nancy, he was a devoted husband. To his six sons, he was a caring father. To his 11 grandchildren, he was a proud and doting grandfather. To those of us who call Arizona home, we are grateful for the past 60 years that Sheriff Dever has called Arizona home as well.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of this act. This legislation would provide important regulatory reforms, and it couldn't come at a better time for the economy. In particular, I am pleased to support my colleague from Arizona, Congressman Quayle's Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act that is included in this legislation. In the West, we have seen the EPA adopt what appears to be a contemplated strategy with respect to the implementation of the Clean Air Act regional haze requirements that includes ignoring submitted State plans addressing air quality issues, inviting lawsuits from nongovernmental organizations, and then agreeing to consent decrees that result in Federal intervention. While this ``sue and settle'' strategy raises a host of issues, in this instance, it tramples on States' prerogatives, and it flies in the face of Congress' explicit intent to let the States lead when it comes to air quality decisions. In Arizona, for example, EPA has previously flatly ignored the State's plan for dealing with regional haze. They have instead agreed to a consent decree without even consulting ADEQ, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, that would result in a federally driven and needlessly costly outcome that will not be beneficial to Arizona's residents. While Arizona has sued to be allowed to intervene and is appealing the consent decree, it is likely this scenario would have been more beneficial to Arizonans had this legislation been in place. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and, in doing so, support Congress' intent that the States lead when it comes to air quality planning. Mr. SMITH Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, job creation is the key to economic recovery. But overregulation kills jobs and burdens small businesses, which are America's main job generators. The Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act offers many commonsense, bipartisan solutions to the problem of overregulation. Like the Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act, the Regulatory Accountability Act, and the REINS Act, the bill before us today offers more commonsense, bipartisan solutions to protect small businesses from even more wasteful job-killing regulations and red tape. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I look forward to its passage and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman, and I know that we have made efforts in the past to make sure that these are all competitively bid. The reason I am bringing this amendment is that the Army stated in this case that this contract was not competitively bid. We just want to make sure, and that's why I appreciate the gentleman accepting the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you.

Mr. FLAKE. That's correct.

Mr. FLAKE. This bill would prohibit the use of funds in the bill to enter into a contract with a company for leakproof drip pans unless the contract is awarded using competitive procedures as defined by statute. A recent article by The New York Times highlights the story of a sole-source contract being awarded to a for-profit company to produce leak pans used in Black Hawk helicopters operated by the U.S. Army. These pans, according to The New York Times, cost $17,000 apiece, and in the last 3 years the Army has purchased $6.5 million of them. An Army spokesman is quoted in the article, saying, ``Congress mandated a leakproof transmission drip pan,'' and that the contract was awarded without competitive bids. I think that we can all agree that any contract administered by the Army or any other Federal agency should be awarded based on competitive procedures, which are already codified in statute. While there are no line items for these pans included in the bill before us or the accompanying report, the Times reports that the Army has indicated that it ``might get more pans if financing is approved.'' The Department of Defense is already in the process of slashing its budget. They are learning to do more with less as Americans all over the country have had to do in the past several years. If a competitor exists who will produce these pans for less than $17,000 apiece, we ought to make sure that they compete for the project. The amendment before us now would not prohibit the procurement of these pans even if it is determined that there is one company that can supply the Army with them--now, if there is only one company--but it would ensure that any purchase of these pans is done in a manner consistent with competitive procedures, putting to rest any notion that Congress has mandated sole-source contracts for private companies. This is a good governance, commonsense amendment. I urge my colleagues to adopt it, and I look forward, if there is any objection--I think it's a good government amendment, but I would love to be able--I can't reserve my time, but I would like to have a dialogue if somebody has an issue with this amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It's no secret that the U.S. health care system is broken; however, instead of strengthening the system, the Affordable Care Act took a top-down approach that will leave patients and taxpayers worse off than they were before. I believe Americans should have access to effective and affordable care. This can best be accomplished by using market forces to improve quality and control cost. I support allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines and the expansion of associated health plans, health savings accounts, and other free-market reforms that allow individuals to be in control of their own healthcare decisions. Americans have a choice when they buy a car or go to the grocery store. Why can't they have that same choice when purchasing something as important as health care? I also support allowing small employers and individuals to pool together to purchase health insurance, thereby giving them greater buying power to negotiate when purchasing a plan. Expanding health savings accounts not only gives individuals maximum flexibility in determining how to spend their health care dollars, but it encourages saving and helps reduce the overall cost of health care. Finally, I support reforming the tax code so individuals get the same incentives that employers currently have for purchasing health care. These measures will make health care more affordable, and unlike the law we are repealing today, they are sustainable. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the achievements in the field of biomedical research of the Translational Genomics Research Institute, known as TGen, over the last decade. Located in Phoenix, TGen applies the science of genomics, or the study of the human genetics, to finding cures for neurological disorders and diseases such as cancer and diabetes. When TGen was founded in 2002, Arizona's state and local leaders were excited by the promise of the many novel scientific discoveries that could be made through TGen. But what was most exciting was that these discoveries made possible through further research into the human genome would translate into immediate and effective benefits for doctors and especially patients. By partnering with entities at the forefront of medical discoveries like the Mayo Clinic and Scottsdale Healthcare, TGen for 10 years has focused on utilizing genomic analyses to improve patient treatments. Whether it's sequencing anthrax or the plague; finding new clues to Alzheimer's disease; or leading new research partnerships addressing pediatric and canine cancers, TGen's research has changed patients' lives. In addition to making critical contributions to the scientific and medical fields, over the past 10 years, TGen has made many contributions to Arizona's economy in the forms of investment and private-sector job creation. Investment into TGen and the biosciences spurred growth across the state, and spurred the launch of the Critical Path Institute and Bio5 in southern Arizona; Arizona State University's Biodesign Institute and a northern Phoenix bio campus; TGen North; and expansion of W.L. Gore in northern Arizona. On its 10th anniversary, I applaud TGen's president, Dr. Jeffrey Trent, and the scientists at TGen for their commitment to make a difference for medical patients and their contributions to creating innovative research for Arizona.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would cut $200 million from the HOME Investment Partnership and transfer the savings to the deficit reduction account. This simply takes the level of funding to where it was last year. We are often told we need to cut spending. I think we need to. Yet, with this program, we're actually increasing the funding from $1 billion to $1.2 billion, so it's about a 20 percent increase. This is the largest Federal block grant to State and local governments, designed exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households. In 2011, a nationwide investigation by The Washington Post described the program as: a dysfunctional system that delivers billions of dollars to local housing agencies with few rules, safeguards or even a reliable way to track projects. This was The Washington Post saying this. It wasn't some conservative Republicans. This was The Washington Post. According to The Post: These lapses have led to widespread misspending and delays in a two-decade-old program meant to deliver decent housing to the working poor. Nearly 700 projects awarded $400 million have been idling for years while the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has largely looked the other way. It does not track the pace of construction, and it often fails to spot defunct deals. Instead, they're trusting local agencies to police projects. Again, that was a quote from the investigation. In 2009-2010, HUD's Office of Inspector General came out with reports that questioned not only HUD's ability to monitor these HOME project funds but also whether the program was in compliance with its own rules. In addition, several Members of Congress have acknowledged concerns about HUD's ability to ensure that HOME funds are used in a way that produce the program's intended results. The full Financial Services Committee has held congressional hearings in response to these concerns. In a spending bill just last year, Congress included language that placed additional restrictions on the use of HOME funds for FY12. The problem is those are the funds that are being implemented now. We don't even know if they're following the guidelines and are doing what we asked them to do. Yet here we're appropriating $200 million more to them rather than saying, Hey, we wanted you to do these things. Let's check and see if you've done them before we award you with more money. It's difficult to evaluate these projects when they haven't been done yet. That's the reason we ought to cut back and simply go level with the funding of last year. Again, it's not a cut from last year. It's level funding from last year. It's the least we can do when running these kinds of deficits and when we have this kind of debt and when we've found massive, massive problems with this program. The remedy isn't to award a 20 percent increase. If anything, we ought to be cutting the program. I'm simply saying with this amendment, let's take it back to where it was last year. What is the point of oversight that we exercise here in Congress if we exercise that oversight, we find problems, we ask for a remedy, and then we award money before we even see if the remedy was actually entered into? We have oversight here. We have the power of the purse. Let's use it. This program is troubled. It has problems. It's not just people on one side of the aisle that recognize that. The Congress as a whole does. So why in the world are we awarding 20 percent more funding this year than we had last year? This amendment would take it back to last year's funding level. I urge its adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio. For all I know, this cuts money from my district as well. I have not discriminated in where I have taken money from. I think everybody who has followed the process over the past several years knows that. With regard to the Central Arizona Project, Arizona repays the Federal Government to the tune of about $55 million a year, still after all these years. The fact that we are 83 percent publicly owned in Arizona means that our local communities have to run their facilities and run their services on just a narrow sliver of private land.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On behalf of the Republican members of the Arizona delegation, welcome, Ron Barber. We are glad to have you here. Nobody would have wished for the circumstances that made this seat vacant. We all miss our colleague Gabby Giffords, but it was her wish that you fill this seat for the remainder of her term. She got her wish as was the wish of so many Arizonans. Those of us who have worked with your office, with the capable staff during this trying time, have been very impressed with your commitment to the State of Arizona, and that commitment will now continue with your being a Member of Congress. We welcome you here.