Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Salt River Project, an institution that is celebrating its Centennial of Service to the people of Arizona, including a majority of constituents in my own Sixth Congressional District. When the Salt River Project, or SRP, was formed on February 7, 1903 under the name of the Salt River Valley Water Users Association, it represented a new and courageous experiment in public-private partnership. The Association's purpose was to provide a means of pooling the assets of central Arizona's pioneering farm communities as collateral for a federal loan to construct Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River east of Phoenix. The dam, made possible by passage of the National Reclamation Act of 1902, was conceived as a way to bring a reliable supply of water to the region now encompassing the Phoenix metro area. Nobody could be sure that the experiment would work or that the government would be paid back for construction of the dam and canal systems that would bring water to central Arizona's desert valleys. But vision, courage and persistence paid off. Completion of Roosevelt Dam in 1911 and subsequent construction of other dams on rivers east and north of Phoenix provided a water and early hydropower system that led to a flourishing economy. Following World War II, local farms gave way to housing and industry as veterans flocked to Arizona to raise their families and launch business careers. The loan that had financed Roosevelt Dam was paid back in full to the federal treasury. And SRP, which had formed a power district during the Depression years, continued to expand its water- power services to meet the needs of central Arizona's booming economy. Today, SRP stands as central Arizona's largest water supplier and as the nation's third largest public power utility with more than 780,000 customers. It has won a reputation as a solidly-run company with a strong commitment to the environment, human services, schools and the communities it serves. Through a partnership between SRP, the federal government, and the state and local communities, central Arizona has grown into one of the most productive metropolitan regions in the nation with a population of more than 3 million and growing. Mr. Speaker, as SRP embarks on its second century of service, it deserves special recognition for the historic and invaluable contributions it has made to the people of my native state.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I too fear that this bill will be imperiled, but I fear it if we attach such language. That is why we had a debate in the committee. The chairman is correct. That is where we debate bills like this. We had the debate in committee, we put that amendment up to a vote and it failed. Were we to accept the unanimous consent request or to amend this on the floor, we would be going and stepping over the committee. That is not the process. That is the relevant process we have to follow.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, regarding the gentleman from Michigan's point about this not being a laughing matter, certainly I do not make a laughing matter out of it. The only humor I found is in being elevated to the status of chairman of the subcommittee, which I am not. The chairman just informed me if I am, it has been revoked. That is the only part that I find humorous. This is not a laughing matter at all. When the ranking minority member mentions that in the subcommittee we had discussions about where the authority ought to rest for a study, we simply pointed out that the amendment, as drafted, mentioned the INS Commissioner when, under our own language out of the committee, that position will no longer exist. So that would not be the proper place for the study. What we suggested was that that responsibility would lie with the GAO. As the chairman mentioned, we have offered again and again and again, at the gentleman's suggestion, I say to the ranking minority member, that we draft a letter to the GAO and to ask them to conduct such a study, to do that. I stand ready to do that, and I hope that we can. This is an important issue. We simply need not have it in statute because that would imperil the bill. We cannot, for every law enforcement action taken in this House or in this body, attach racial profiling language. We simply cannot. That would imperil too much good legislation going forward. It is not a laughing matter at all; this is serious. People are dying in the border towns every day, and a lot of it is linked to drunken drivers coming across the borders. This is a serious matter, we ought to take it that way, and move this bill forward without secondary amendments. Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank and pay tribute to the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor and for working it through the committee in such a deliberative fashion. We debated this at the subcommittee level, at the committee level; and we had a great debate on it. Many Members shared their support for the bill. As mentioned, this is simply closing a glaring loophole in the law that allows someone in a border port of entry, at a land port of entry to drive totally intoxicated, and INS officers are powerless to stop them, unless they want to do it as a citizen for which they risk liability that they are unwilling to assume. We asked INS officers what happens when someone who is visibly drunk crosses a border. They said, we let them go on a wing and a prayer and just hope that somebody, hope that a law enforcement officer at the municipal or State level is able to stop them. Well, that has not been good enough. In California, in the past 2 years, we have had two law enforcement officers killed, killed when drunk drivers drove up, under-age drivers who drove to Mexico with the express purpose of drinking because they can, because of lax enforcement, drink underage, drive across the border knowing full well that they will not be stopped by the person who sees them right inside the window, who stops them, who cannot stop them when they are drunk, who will just let them go on through. They killed two California highway patrol officers. Several fatal car crashes in my home State of Arizona are blamed on drunk drivers going to Mexico to drink, coming back across the border, knowing that they cannot be stopped. This is wrong. This is what this law is about. We have to change that. We have to close this glaring loophole. I do not know about my colleagues, but I do not want to stand and tell the widow or the widower of the next highway patrol officer or the next person who is killed on the border that we could have had this bill passed, we could have done it were it not for extraneous language that is purely secondary to the bill. As the chairman mentioned, we have offered and are more than willing to have a letter to the GAO. This need not be in statute as they are asking. We can do the same by a letter to the GAO. But let us get this bill passed. We need it. There is a glaring loophole now. Lives are being lost on the border in my State and others. I would ask for support of this bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for bringing this forward and also the gentlewoman from Maryland for her hard work on this subject; also the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Michigan for their hard work on fashioning legislation here that protects the second amendment rights of all Americans, but also ensures that criminals cannot more easily get their hands on guns. And also, as the gentleman from Michigan mentioned, that law-abiding citizens are not denied or delayed their right simply because State officials have not the resources or the inclination to move ahead on this. I am proud to support this legislation. I urge support of it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers). (Mr. EHLERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time; and I appreciate being part of this historic debate. It has often been said that the most difficult decision a Member of Congress will ever have to make is a decision to send people in America to war. We are often told that we ought to approach it as if we are sending our own child to war. I do not have any children old enough to participate in a war at this time, but I do have one family member who will likely participate in this conflict. That adds extra gravity to this debate for me. Earlier in this debate it was also mentioned that we ought to visit some of the war memorials around town. I did so last night. Late last night, I visited the Vietnam Memorial; and I can tell my colleagues that seeing so many names on that wall adds importance to the debate that we are having tonight, that we will have throughout this week. We ought to let history be our guide here. But the most recent history in this case that we ought to look at is the vote that took place in this Chamber 12 years ago. During that time, we faced a very similar decision. Should we thwart Saddam Hussein in his attempt to go beyond his boundaries or should we appease him? Fortunately, the majority of this body and the other body agreed we ought to thwart him; and I think we can all agree that, had we not done so, that the biological and chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein possesses would be added to nuclear weapons which he would certainly possess today had he not been thwarted at that time. We are in this position today, I would submit, because we have no other choice. This is our only reasonable option. War will no doubt come at great cost. When we visit the war memorials, we see that cost, but the cost of appeasement is far greater. I commend the House leadership for bringing this resolution forward and for shepherding it through process. I especially commend our President who so forcefully pushed for this resolution and who has so deliberately pushed for this resolution. I urge support for the resolution.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, today I voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 4600, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, and Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act. My vote was a difficult one, but after consulting with both supporters and opponents of the bill, I was not convinced that the federal government should preempt state law in this area. Those supporting this bill have made some compelling arguments as to why Congress should step in and institute these reforms. They cite the national nature of insurance plans, whereby a doctor in Arizona might have to pay more for malpractice insurance due to an over-the-top jury award in Texas. They also note that, as doctors close up shop or stop providing high-risk care in specialties such as emergency medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, patients are forced to cross state lines in order to seek out treatment. We have all watched with dismay as hospitals have been forced to shut their doors and doctors have opted to treat patients without malpractice insurance due to the high costs of premiums. Certainly, the trial attorneys who line their pockets with egregious fees aren't suffering as a result of the mess they've made with unscrupulous lawsuits. These arguments only underscore an already evident need for the states to pursue medical malpractice reforms. However, as one who believes firmly in federalism, I am unwilling to support legislation that would, in effect, preempt the constitution of the state of Arizona, which prohibits caps on damages. The natural evolution of health care delivery suggests that a federal solution such as H.R. 4600 may one day be necessary. Even today, we need tort reform badly. It's up to the states to begin that process, and I plan to be part of those efforts. The states should follow California's example, which has been an undeniable success over the past 25 years.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on September 5, 2002, I voted against legislation to authorize the Dam Safety and Security Act of 2002. This bill is just another example of federal involvement in projects that are already being conducted by the states. The bill inserts federal management and funding into the already operating state-level programs that ensure the safety of the nation's dams. It establishes a review board to oversee and monitor state implementation but authorizes $35 million in government spending. Like many federal programs, the government seeks to lure states with federal tax dollars into ceding control of state responsibilities. The problem is, this program-and the additional spending-does nothing more to ensure the safety of dams than what individual states already do. State and local officials in Arizona determine what is required to ensure the safety of their dams, and what works in some instances might not work in others.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We just had a discussion about our ability to rein in spending by the Federal Government. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) is exactly right. We ought to save money where we can. We all know that entitlements are running out of control. There are other things that spend money, but we do have control over appropriation bills and discretionary spending that comes to this floor. The problem is we have far too little control. Those of us who do not serve on the Committee on Appropriations are forced to look at only the bill language when we amend on the floor. All we have is the bill. We can only amend what is in the bill. The problem is the bill here in this case for this bill that we are looking at is 103 pages. The committee report, on the other hand, is 135 pages. The bill contains what are called hard marks or directions for spending money. The committee report contains soft marks. We do not have any control. We cannot get at the soft marks here on the floor. Ordinary Members of Congress cannot go in and cut out pork barrel spending because most of the pork barrel spending happens and is directed within the conference report. When I brought this amendment on the last appropriation bill we did, I was ruled out of order because we cannot legislate on appropriation bills. My amendment would assume that those who spend the money in Federal agencies actually read our bills. Apparently we do not assume that. They are not directed to. But we know they do because in every case when they spend money they spend the soft marks. If they do not, they are punished the next year by the Committee on Appropriations. All my amendment says is that unless it is appropriated in a bill, not in a report, in a bill that Members have the ability to amend, then Federal agencies cannot spend it. That is not unreasonable. It is not saying that we not have earmarks. The House, the Congress, has a prerogative to earmark. It simply is saying do it in a bill where we have sunlight, where everybody can see it, we are where we have an open process, not hidden away in some committee language or conference language or a report that nobody can get at. So I think that is a reasonable request. However, I realize that I will be ruled out of order again. I will commit to work on the language to make sure that we can get around the problem. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Lynch).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Secretary O'Neill, in testimony before the Senate just a few months ago, stated that if it were up to him, he would basically agree to my amendment. He would not enforce the travel ban because it takes away money from terrorism.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out, it was said you cannot travel to Syria. You can travel to Syria. You can travel to Iran. You can travel to North Korea. You can travel to China. So that is not the issue. The issue is consistency here. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, may I just state for the record for the folks at home, I am Mormon and I do not drink mojitos, or whatever they are. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to stand in support of the Flake amendment. What the Flake amendment simply says is that this is all about freedom. Our government should not tell us where we can and cannot travel. It is a fundamental right of every American to travel. Every one of us ought to have the right to go to Cuba to see what a mess Fidel Castro has made of that island. We should have that right firsthand. That is what this amendment is all about. When you strip away everything else, should you be allowed the right to travel to Cuba, or anywhere else you want, or should your government tell you where you can and cannot travel? Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate this debate. I appreciate the good words of my colleague from California. I cannot say that I disagree with any of them. Fidel Castro is a thug. We have said it again and again and again. What this debate is about is the best way to topple him, to make sure that he does not remain there longer than the 42 years that he has been in power. Let us get back to what this amendment really does. Currently, Cuban American families who live here in the United States are told by their government that they can be charitable but only so charitable. They are told that they can only send up to $100 a month to their family members in Cuba. I do not think that our government ought to be in the business of telling families how charitable they can be. This money is going directly to Cuban families. I asked someone who does not agree with my position on allowing tourists and others to go to Cuba, I asked him why he supported remittances, and the answer was, remittances are different. Remittances are subversive. I agree with that statement, not that they are different. Tourism, I believe, is subversive as well, but if remittances are subversive, then let us do a lot more subversing, I say, if that is a word. Let us be a lot more subversive. Let us allow families to send whatever they would like to their families in Cuba. That is not what this country is about, limiting family charity. That is all this amendment says. At the current time, families are allowed $1,200 a year. Currently, the State Department estimates that a lot more goes to Cuba. It goes in violation or it goes illegally. We should not make criminals out of families for wanting to help their families in Cuba. Let us support this amendment.