Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the Member's commitment on that, and I appreciate also--I believe they are accepting the amendments that I have offered later, which would set up a process whereby we can see how these funds were actually disposed of, and that will help a great deal. I appreciate the chairman working on that. I would just say, in closing, this amendment specifically is to save the money that is still left in that account. If the concern is not to give the President the ability to direct all of these funds or the Secretary of Defense, then this accomplishes it. There is $350 million left in this account. Let's apply that to pay down the debt and deficit. That's what this amendment actually does. It takes the remaining money that has not been designated in that fund and applies it to deficit reduction. So that's what this amendment does, and I would appreciate support for it. I thank the chairman for his comments, and I thank the chairman for his commitment to get away from this earmark culture. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to how much time remains?

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is straightforward. It simply seeks to repeal the authorization for the National Drug Intelligence Center which was included in the 1993 Defense Appropriations Act. The NDIC is an entity that has received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars over the years. This is despite steady criticism that it has been ineffective at accomplishing its mission. This is a mission that has been described as duplicative and ought to be realigned elsewhere. The Wall Street Journal noted on January 31, ``Conservatives have argued the center is a waste of taxpayer money, and critics argue it has never fulfilled its promise to provide high-quality analysis of drug networks.'' I have come to this floor many times, seeking to eliminate funding or to otherwise close the NDIC. However, reducing funding or ending funding for the NDIC has been far from a solo mission. Earlier this year, we voted in the CR debate to end funding for the NDIC. According to Citizens Against Government Waste, President Bush proposed the termination of the NDIC in budget requests for fiscal years 2006, 2007 and 2008. In 2006, a spokesman for the Department of Justice asserted that the resources of the NDIC should be ``realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives.'' Even the current administration's Deputy Attorney General James Cole said that many of the center's functions can be performed elsewhere, as reported in ``CQ Today'' on February 14 of this year. As I mentioned, during consideration of H.R. 1, 262 Members of this body voiced their opposition to the NDIC when they voted in favor of an amendment that I offered to strike funding in its entirety for fiscal year 2011. Yet the NDIC still received more than $34 million in fiscal year 2011, and stands to receive more in fiscal year 2012 unless we do something to stop it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would simply include sense of Congress language in the bill that would express that Congress supports extending the current deployment of National Guard troops on the border through the rest of the fiscal year. As many are aware, in October of last year about 1,200 National Guard troops were deployed along the southwestern border. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the presence of National Guard troops is helping to bridge the gap until we train enough border agents to patrol the rest of the border as authorized by Congress. To be more specific, the Governor of Arizona recently indicated that under this deployment, the Arizona National Guard has been involved in approximately 19,000 observations, 10,000 apprehension assists, 235 drug seizure assists involving about 18 tons of marijuana. However, unless action is taken, this deployment will end at the end of next month when troops will be coming off the border; they will be coming off the border likely before that as well. In Arizona, those in the Yuma sector will tell you that the presence of National Guard troops has been instrumental in us achieving actually operational control, which means that if an illegal alien crosses the border in the Yuma sector, you have a reasonable expectation of catching him or her. So we need that there to maintain operational control, and we also need that presence in the Tucson sector where we have something far from operational control. It would be a step backwards in the Tucson sector which continues to deal with human smuggling and drug smuggling. Whether we like it or not, the southwestern border is not secure. In February of this year, the GAO testified that ``the Border Patrol reported achieving varying levels of operational control--873, 44 percent, of nearly 2,000 southwest border miles by the end of fiscal year 2010.'' So we have a long ways to go, and we certainly need these National Guard troops there. It is not the time to do that. When you talk particularly with the local ranchers, farmers and residents along the border who regularly come in contact with groups coming across the border, many times armed and many times carrying drugs, they certainly support the stay of the National Guard. When I talk to the ranchers, they have particular praise for the actions of the National Guard there. They've done a good job. So, until we can have operational control of more of the border, we've got to ensure that these National Guard troops stay. My understanding is that the President now supports keeping them there if we can find the resources to do so. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. FLAKE. I yield myself the balance of my time. Let me just say that two successive administrations, one Republican, one Democrat, have either called for eliminating or severely reducing the funding that goes to the NDIC because, as we have heard before, the programs are duplicative, wasteful. And there is no doubt that some good work goes on there. Nobody is disputing that. But there is also good work that goes on at the ONDCP or the DEA or other drug enforcement agencies or other agencies that have that as part of their portfolio. That's the problem here. For years and years, we have been funding programs just because a particular powerful Member of this body or somebody sought an earmark or several earmarks or earmarks over a series of years to fund particular institutions or programs. That's what we have here. That's the legacy we are left with here. And we are simply trying to say enough is enough. We have got to save money somewhere. And if we can't do it with a program like this, where can we do it? When are we going to get serious about this debt and deficit that we have? So that's what we're doing here. The reason we're doing it on this is because we're seeking to strike authorization. As we know, if we don't have authorization for a program, it's more difficult for that program to be funded. Believe me, we will be back in the appropriations process to go after this funding as well, but we thought we ought to go here. This was ruled in order. It is germane to the bill. And that's why we are here. Let me just stress again, we have to get serious about this fiscal situation we are in. If we can't get serious about a program like this that's been called duplicative and wasteful, and two successive administrations, one Republican, one Democratic, have urged to either eliminate or severely reduce funding for, and yet Congress keeps coming back and providing far more money than the administration even wants for this because they know there are other programs, other agencies, other institutions that are doing this same work, if we can't save money here, I don't know where we're going to save it, Mr. Chairman. So I would urge adoption of the amendment. Let's do something here for the taxpayer and something for our defense and intelligence and our antidrug efforts by making sure that programs that are not effective end and that funding be placed elsewhere. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would just like to engage in a colloquy briefly if we can. As the gentleman knows, I have worked and he has worked to decrease funding for the NDIC, the National Drug Intelligence Center. This is a center that has received hundreds of millions of dollars over the years, yet in 2005 a White House OMB report said that the NDIC ``has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned mission.'' Reports subsequent to that have pointed to similar failures and problems. Yet it still received last year, I think, $44 million. I had intended to bring an amendment to this authorization bill, but I don't want to hold up this important authorization for FY 11. If I could just ask the chairman if he plans to bring an authorization bill for 2012.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I won't take 2 minutes. I've been listening to part of the discussion here, and it just strikes me that when you see graphics with an oil rig sucking money out of Social Security or Medicare or whatever that was, you know that you have gone beyond the realm of what is logical for a debate or the real facts about what this legislation does. The bottom line is that it will make it easier for us to become more energy independent, not completely energy independent--it can't go that far--but it will make us more independent than we were before. It will create an environment where jobs can be created by the private sector. It will help, over time, to lower the price of gasoline because it will create more supply in the end. That's what it does. It doesn't put a big oil rig on the top of Medicare and suck money from our seniors. Come on. This is just a measure to help the situation, to make it better. We've locked off too many areas to oil drilling, and we've not exploited our own supply enough to help bring down price and to help consumers out there in the world. So that's all this does, and I commend the gentleman for bringing it forward. I urge support for it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the RSC budget. With a deficit of $1.6 trillion, a debt of $14 trillion, it's no surprise that we've got to do something. We have to do something dramatic. This budget actually balances over a 9-year period, and it reforms the programs that are important to many Americans, to make them solvent and sustainable over time. The proposals from the other side of the aisle simply don't do that. They ignore the time bomb that we have in these programs. So I commend the RSC staff and Members for putting this together. This is a good budget. We ought to support it to put our Nation on a path of financial stability and security.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. These are serious times that we're in right now with regard to the debt and deficit. Serious times call for a serious budget, and this is a serious budget. This is one that can actually lead us out of the problems we're in. That is what we need. For those on the other side of the aisle who are saying that they want to preserve Medicare by sticking to the status quo, as I think it was George Will said on Sunday, Your problem isn't Mr. Ryan, it's Mr. Arithmetic. It just doesn't work. You just can't do it. So for all this talk about preserving Medicare, preserving Medicare as it currently is means that you are consigning it to history. It won't survive. You have to change it. You have to change it in ways that make it sustainable and solvent for the long-term future. What we are hearing now is that we need more investment, and that we've got to maintain current spending levels to have more investment. I would refer you to the stimulus that we just passed a year or so ago. What good has that done? Sure, it's a lot more investment or spending-- or whatever you call it--government to government, or the government spending, but it is not enabling the private sector to create jobs. The job of the Federal Government should be to set a conducive tax and regulatory environment so that the private sector can produce jobs. That's what this budget does. That is why I support it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a fascinating discussion we are having here. The gentleman who spoke a while ago said, because this is a lottery and because not every one of the children who wants in this program can get in the program, it represents not a choice but a chance. I can tell you a lot of these kids will settle for a chance. I mean, give them a chance. Give them a choice, a chance, whatever. Just give them the opportunity, however slim it might be. The fact that they only have a chance and that not all of them can get in the program speaks about the demand for the program. It speaks about how many people actually need it and value it and want it, and we ought to expand it further and give more individuals a chance. I live in an area where there are pretty good public schools. My children--I have five of them--have either been in the public schools or are currently in the public schools. Those public schools are better because of the competition around them. We have a robust charter school program in Arizona. There are lots of them around. There are many choices for kids to have. The public schools my kids attend are better for it, and the same will hold true in D.C. as well. If you want to improve the public schools where most children typically attend, then offer a choice and a chance. Competition and accountability does that. It does it all across the economy. It does it in every other phase of our lives. Why we say it won't happen in public education is just beyond me. So I commend those who have put this bill forward. I wholeheartedly support it. I was involved several years ago in crafting the original one, and I am very pleased to support this today. This will be good for all kids.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Yes.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would be to save the taxpayers roughly $30.5 million by preventing the funding of Radio and TV Marti. I have decided to withdraw this amendment in the interest of time and also to work on it in committee with the gentleman from Florida. So we will enter into a colloquy for just 1 minute and go from there. I happen to feel that we have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on Radio and TV Marti over the past 20, 25 years. TV Marti is seen by very few. The gentleman from Florida has a different view. We have agreed to scuttle the debate here and take it up in committee. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers have subsidized ethanol for far too long. This amendment will simply bring that slowly to a stop. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 367.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I hope that nobody in this Chamber or watching here misses the irony of this, that we are spending money to subsidize Brazilian agriculture so that we can continue to subsidize agriculture here. That is just incredible when you think about it. And what this amendment will do is to force us back to the table. It won't spark a trade war. It will simply say, all right, stop subsidizing your own agriculture in a way that violates your trade agreements. That's what we want to do is force the issue where we can actually get out of these subsidy programs. We cannot continue to send money to Brazil so that we can continue to subsidize agriculture here. It just makes no sense at all. This is a great amendment. I hope that my colleagues will support it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. The gentleman before said, in the base bill, these represent the largest cuts we've ever made. That is true, but we are running the largest deficit we have ever run. We have had the largest debt we have ever had, and what the situation calls for are deeper cuts than are in the underlying bill. If we are really going to get on the right track here, we have got to understand that we have to make unprecedented cuts and realize that what we are doing here is a rounding error compared to what we are going to have to do with entitlement spending, which is going to come. But to ensure that we can make those choices when we deal with entitlements, we've got to go deeper than we are going in this base bill. Again, we are running a deficit of $1.5 trillion this year on a debt of $14 trillion. The $100 billion in the base bill is 1/15th of the entire deficit that we are running--just 1/15th. That's not enough. We have to go further. I support the Jordan amendment. Let's make deeper cuts.