Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I thank the chairman for bringing this important legislation forward. When most Americans travel overseas they do so for educational purposes or for relaxation or simply to immerse themselves in another culture, but others have a more perverse goal in mind. They go with the explicit purpose to lure children in and exploit children with elicit sexual activity. This is something we cannot as Americans countenance. In my home State of Arizona a television station went down to Mexico to the city of Puerto Vallarta and went to the beach and had someone pose as an underage, clearly informing those who propositioned him that he was under age. He was propositioned several times very quickly. Men prowl the beaches there propositioning kids as young as 8 years old, and it goes on day in and day out. Because of the dire poverty in some areas and lax enforcement, Americans believe that they can get away with that kind of activity, and nothing is to stop them except for their conscience. This bill says not only do they have to worry about their conscience but they have to worry about the Federal Government coming after them. We will not allow this activity to go forward. It is clear that Americans traveling from one State to another cannot engage in this kind of activity and to exploit young children. They should not be able to travel to other countries for the purpose of using children there for illicit sexual activity. This is simply wrong. This legislation will go a long way towards closing the loophole that exists that requires prosecutors to prove intent. Whether intent is formed here or in the foreign country, it should not matter. What matters is the act itself, and we should not allow it to happen. Again, I thank the chairman. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it has been said recently that this is a frivolous debate. Well, I would submit that there is no more important debate that we can debate here in the Congress. For those of us who believe in the principles of a limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility, the question of how easy it should be to raise taxes is a very relevant debate to have every day that we have it. Now, we have been told that the Founding Fathers would not approve this. Well, the Founding Fathers did not approve the Federal income tax. In fact, they expressly prohibited it. I would suggest that if the Founding Fathers were alive today and realized that 22 percent of the national income is now taken in taxes, they would applaud this move. They would applaud this move, because they realized that they believed in limited government, economic freedom, and individual responsibility. If we look across the country today we see several States, nine in fact, that have such provisions. Arizona, the State that I come from, is one of them. Now, we recently had a huge deficit in Arizona and the States, unlike the Federal Government, are prohibited from carrying debts. So in Arizona, the debate has been this year on how are we going to bring spending in line with revenue. That is a debate that we ought to have every year in the Federal Government, because we run deficits. We can do that here; we should not be able to. That is why we need a balanced budget amendment as well. But until we have one, we ought to make it more difficult to raise taxes. In Arizona, it has forced a debate that is healthy. There they have decided we are going to cut spending in this area and this area. There have been a few gimmicks, yes; but in large measure, they have actually done what we ought to be doing here. We ought to cut frivolous spending and take it from there. So I commend the authors of this legislation, I support the rule, and I commend my colleagues for bringing it forward.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr . Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes 171, 172 and 173. I was regrettably absent from the chamber today during rollcall votes 171, 172 and 173. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all three votes.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, in 1996, Congress did a very good thing: they reformed welfare and it was said at the time that it would throw children into poverty and a lot of people would be worse off than they were before. Let us look at the figures. Mr. Speaker, 4.2 million fewer Americans live in poverty today than they did in 1996, and 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996. Now, the other side of this debate says that those are the ``alleged benefits.'' Those are not the alleged benefits; those are the facts. People are better off, everyone: children, women, minorities. We are all better off today than we were in 1996. What it all comes down to it, we can look at individuals. There is a great story here. Tanya, a single mother, went on public assistance when her twin girls were a year old. Since completing her work with Calworks last year, she has been able to earn enough money to purchase her own home. It is success stories like this, individuals that bring the meaning to us, that prove that we need to reauthorize this program and to continue to move forward.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule, but in opposition to the overall bill. I think we as Republicans in particular ought to worry about what we are doing here. In 1964 in a speech for Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan reminded us, he said: ``There is no such thing as a left or a right, only an up or a down; up to the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order, or down to the ash heap of totalitarianism.'' He said: ``Those who would trade freedom for security have already embarked on that downward course.'' Now, what we did last week in the conference is we traded the Freedom to Farm Act for the Farm Security Act. I think we as Republicans ought to think twice about what we are doing here. We hear a lot about the cheap food that we have in the U.S. Well, if you wonder why our food is so cheap, you have to realize part of the reason is because we are subsidizing it. It will cost the average American family over the next 10 years over $1,800 in direct taxes simply because of subsidies to farm products. Do you want to know why products are cheap? It is because we are paying for it in other ways. You have to also realize they should be cheaper. The average American family will pay $2,500 in addition to the $1,800 for a total of more than $4,000 over the next 10 years, simply because of inflated food prices because of the price supports inherent in this bill. We ought to wonder what we are doing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and Americans across the country are being stuck with the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for yielding me the time. When I stood a week or so ago to oppose this bill, it was said from the other side, well, that fellow does not know anything about agriculture. If my colleagues look at the end of my right index finger, it is missing. It was cut off in a wind rower at age 5 on an alfalfa field. I have been away from the farm for a long time, but I still know manure when it is shoveled, and a lot of it is being shoveled here today. This farm bill is bad for Americans. It will cost the average American family over $4,000 in terms of direct taxes and price supports, inflated prices because of price supports over the next 10 years. We are abandoning the Freedom to Farm Act, and in its place, putting in a Farm Security Act. We as Republicans should not be doing this. Democrats should not be doing it either. We ought to look past special interest politics and look at what is best for American families across the country, and at this point I am going to insert an article from The Wall Street Journal. [From the Wall Street Journal, May 2, 2002] Bloat Watch (By Jeff Flake) As a young kid growing up on a farm in northern Arizona, one of my more unusual chores was what I called ``bloat watch.'' I would sit atop a hill with knife in hand, watching cattle grazing on the green alfalfa field below. As soon as the first critter assumed the bloated ``I've fallen and I can't get up'' position, I would rush to the victim, raise the knife and stab just behind the last rib high on the left side--then taken cover as pent-up gas and alfalfa spewed heavenward, raining down on boy and bovine. I'm sure that being stabbed in the side wasn't pleasant, but the alternative was to be unceremoniously dragged over the hill to the bone yard. As we debate the newest farm bill in Congress, I find myself instinctively reaching for my old knife. There are many examples of bloated government in Washington, but none are just begging for the knife as much as our farm policy. Last week, House and Senate negotiators approved a farm bill expanding payments to farmers by nearly $50 billion over the next decade. The bulk of this increase, more than 90%, will go to farmers producing just five crops: wheat, corn, rice, cotton and soybean. Two-thirds will go to just 10% of farmers. The passage of this bill will mark a full scale repudiation of the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996, which sought to wean farmers off government assistance. That the new farm bill is bad policy is not seriously disputed. It distorts the free market, wreaks havoc with incentives, further institutionalizes dependency and jeopardizes our export economy. But it is more than just bad policy--it is bad politics for Republicans. The farm bill's $173.5 billion price tag over 10 years make sour claim as the party of fiscal discipline purely relative. It is estimated that this legislation will cost the average American household $4,377 over the next 10 years--$1,805 in taxes and $2,572 in inflated food prices because of price supports. That doesn't sound like a message this Republican wants to run on. As evidenced in 1994, Republicans win elections when they draw a sharp contrast with Democrats. When Congressional Republicans seek to blur the lines, as we've done for the past several years, Democrats gain ground, as they've done for the past several years. There is an old political axiom that goes ``You can never out-Democrat a Democrat.'' While we Republicans have tested that axiom's limits of late, we ought to understand that voters will eventually go for the genuine article. With this approach we might eke out another election with our slim majority intact, but our days are numbered. On the other hand, if presented with an articulate ``freedom'' vs. ``security'' argument, most voters will opt for the former. The dilemma for Republicans is that we've not only abandoned the freedom argument in principle, we've dropped the rhetoric as well. Last week, at the same time Republican conferees on the farm bill were replacing the Freedom to Farm Act with the Farm Security Act, other House Republicans were holding a press conference where they slammed the Democrats for stealing the Republican Conference's ``Securing America's Future'' theme. Frankly, I'd rather be accused of stealing that patronizing theme than coining it. Let the Democrats have it. In a 1964 speech, Ronald Reagan reminded us that there is no such thing as ``left'' or ``right.'' Rather, there was only an ``up'' toward freedom or a ``down'' toward totalitarianism. ``Those who would sacrifice freedom for security,'' Mr. Reagan said, ``have already started down the downward path.'' It is probably too late for Congress to reverse course on this farm bill. We can only hope that President Bush is watching, pen in hand, as Congressional Republicans abandon all discretion and graze on green alfalfa right along with the Democrats. Being stabbed with a veto pen might not seem pleasant, but it sure beats ending up in the political bone yard.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's leadership on this issue and the others that have spoken. This, it has been said, is the largest expansion of the Federal Government domestic program since the 1960s, aside from military issues. It is a huge expansion of the Federal Government and little is being said about it. We are expanding the commodity programs to include for the first time apples, peanuts, onions, with little discussion about it at all. It simply increases dependency out there among our farmers and it goes simply the wrong direction, away from the free market. I find it ironic that this bill, at a time that we are supposedly embracing free markets around the world, this replaces the Freedom to Farm Act, it repudiates it, it sets it aside and replaces it with the Farm Security Act. We are trading freedom for so-called security that is often illusive. We need to know who is receiving these subsidies. That is why I appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's leadership on this issue, to know that most of the subsidies are actually going to well-off farmers, or some who are not farmers at all. We know, for example, that Scottie Pippen, that well-known farmer from Arkansas, when he is not posting up for the Portland Trailblazers, apparently he is digging post holes around his farm in Arkansas. He received thousands of dollars in subsidies for either growing or agreeing not to grow certain crops. Sam Donaldson, Ted Turner, that pauper David Rockefeller is also getting subsidies. We know this because people are posting on their web sites, getting through Freedom of Information those who are receiving subsidies. Now, we had to fight back an attempt this year to actually keep that information public. It is so embarrassing that a lot of people want it private again so nobody can point out how absurd it is that individuals like this are getting subsidies from government. We have to recognize that the average American family over the next 10 years will spend about $1,800 in higher taxes simply to pay for the subsidy programs in this bill. Worse than that, that same family will pay another $2,500 just in the case of increased food prices because of the price supports in this system. That is a total of over $4,000 that the average American family will spend because of this bill. That simply is wrong and we should not go forward with it. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and speak on it.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Just to the point of the conferees ignoring the will of the House, there was another issue that was brought up. There was a vote on a motion to instruct which would instruct the House conferees to accept the Senate version with regard to private financing of agriculture exports to Cuba. One can argue about the policy there, but the House overwhelmingly, 2 years ago, said that food and medicine sales to Cuba were fine. All this would say is that private banks here in the U.S., if they want to take the risk, then they can lend. Right now it has to be done on a cash basis. We had a vote, 272 Members supported it, yet the conferees ignored that, and they ignored the Senate as well, and that provision is out. So I appreciate what the Members here have done, and I just wanted to point out that that was another issue where the conferees simply ignored what the House felt as a whole.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will vote on the conference report of the farm bill. I think it is important to stand up and express opposition to this measure. I think it is probably the worst piece of legislation we will vote on this year. It has been called the largest expansion of the Federal Government on domestic terms aside from military policy in this great society. If you look at it over the next 10 years we will be spending, the average American family will spend about $1,800 just in taxes to support the subsidy payments as part of this farm bill. Above and beyond all that, the average American family will spend about $2,500 in increased and inflated food prices because of the price supports inherent in this bill. I grew up on a farm, I am one of 11 children in northern Arizona. And one of my more unusual chores growing up was what I called bloat watch. I would sit on the top of a hill and overlook the alfalfa field where cattle were grazing. And when a critter would assume the ``I'm bloated and I cannot get up position,'' I was to rush to the field with a knife in hand and stab the critter high on the left side behind the last rib. I am sure it was not very pleasant, but it would save the critter's life. And silage pent-up gas would spew and rain down all over. But it was the only thing that would save the critter. It is much like this farm bill. I feel like reaching for my knife whenever we debate it. It is bloated bigger than ever, and we have got to take some drastic measures to rein it in. I think that it is not only bad policy, I think that is accepted by just about everyone, but it is bad politics by Republicans. We have always stood for freedom as opposed to security. I think it is not ironic that the farm bill is replacing the Freedom to Farm Act with the Farm Security Act. I think we are going the wrong direction when we do this. We have to stand for freedom in all areas. Farmers ought to be free for all they want and gain a profit for what they sell, not to be told by government how much they can plant and when they can plant it. We are moving far, too far away from the free market. I hope we will reconsider. I hope if we do not reconsider, that the President is waiting with veto pen in hand.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill. It will improve things over in our Immigration and Naturalization Service. I believe we are doing the right thing by splitting this agency up. However, we cannot deceive ourselves into thinking that nothing is wrong over there and that we can only point to a few people and say that they are the problem. We need to give those in management position and others the flexibility to deal with personnel, like they have at the CIA, like they have at the FBI, like they have at other agencies. We have big problems there that simply saying ``business as usual'' will not solve.

Mr. FLAKE. Reclaiming my time, all we are seeking to do here is give them the flexibility that is enjoyed by other agencies. We believe that is needed. I commend the gentleman for doing this. I was pleased to support the manager's amendment. There are other things wrong at the INS. One of which is that little fiefdoms have been created over the years and managers have served sometimes in one position for 20 years. Whereas, in other agencies like the FBI, like the armed services, they are forced to move around to know what other parts of the agencies do. And that way little fiefdoms are not created as easily. I am pleased that that language was included in the manager's amendments, but we need to do much more. That is why I support my colleague from California (Mr. Issa) with this important amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. We cannot know. We simply do not know. We do not know who is here, who is there, how many are here illegally. There is so much we do not know at the INS.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, it is funny how politics changes very little over the years. More than 30 years ago, Ronald Reagan, in a speech for Barry Goldwater, what I consider the best speech ever given said, ``This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self government, or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.'' I guess I am now part of that little intellectual elite in Washington, but I can tell my colleagues that I have had no epiphany or no revelation over the past 2 years that tells me how to spend people's money better than they can spend it themselves. That is why I and all of my Republican colleagues and 28 of our Democrat colleagues supported the legislation last year to cut taxes. Now it is incumbent on us to make it permanent. If we truly believe that Americans can spend their money better than we can spend it for them, then we will support this measure to make the tax cuts permanent.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. It is interesting to hear this debate, to hear the other side say, ``Well, nobody's getting payments over $275,000. That's just a myth. That's just something we hear out there that's in the press. Nobody really does that.'' If that is the case, then why oppose this motion? I commend the gentleman for bringing it forward. In my view, we ought to get back to the Freedom to Farm Act of 1996. We ought to be moving in the other direction. That is my position. But this motion makes what I believe is an obscene farm bill just a little more palatable. I would urge support of it and encourage the other side, hey, if it is true that nobody is receiving these payments, that if Scottie Pippen who makes $18 million a year posting up for the Portland Trail Blazers is not making another $150,000 digging postholes apparently around his Arkansas farm, if that is not the case, then, hey, support the motion. It is not going to hurt anybody. But if it is the case, then, by golly, we ought to put a stop to it. With that, I urge support for the motion.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of rule XXII, I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 2646 tomorrow. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Flake of Arizona moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 2646 (an act to provide for the continuation of agricultural programs through fiscal year 2011) be instructed to agree to section 1144(g)(1)(C) of the Food Security Act of 1985, as added by section 204 of the Senate amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, a lot of disinformation is being spread about this bill. We heard a bit of it just a minute ago when the opponents talked about Federal caseload and how that would be increased too much. Well, let us look at the numbers, and we find a different story. According to the administrative office of the U.S. Courts and the 1998 Court Statistics Project, last year only 2,393 class actions were filed in Federal district courts. Since 1997, there has been an 8 percent decrease in the number of cases pending in Federal district courts nationwide. Meanwhile, civil filings in State trial courts have increased 28 percent since 1984. In most jurisdictions, each new State court judge is assigned an average of between 1,000 and 2,000 new cases every year. In contrast, Federal court judges are assigned an average of fewer than 500 cases every year. I would submit that the opponents of this bill and those who argue about Federal caseloads ought to get busy and help those approve Federal judges who are waiting. There are over 100 waiting at the moment. That represents about 10 percent of the caseloads that could be handled in Federal Court. So on one side, the caseload is too heavy; on the other side, we are not approving, we are holding up, Federal judges who could help with that caseload. What this has become, as has been mentioned before, is a racket involving invent a client, choose a court, browbeat a company into compliance and settlement, and then watch the money roll in. We need to stop this. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, what this boils down to is if we believe there is a need for reform, it is with class action or not. If Members do not believe there is a need for reform, then this amendment is fine, because under this amendment we have no change at all. There is no reform, because anything that goes to the Federal court can come right back to the State court, where the abuse occurred in the first place. The examples of abuse are rampant here. We have gone through them before, but it serves us well to go through a few of them again. In this case, trial lawyers, $2 million; the plaintiffs, a coupon for a box of Cheerios. That kind of abuse, if allowed by this amendment, would go up to the Federal court. If the Federal court says under rule 23 it does not qualify as a class action, it goes back to the State court, where the abuse can occur again. The other example, trial lawyers get over $100,000; the plaintiffs, four golf balls. If my colleagues do not think that that is abuse, then this amendment is fine. If Members do, strike down the amendment; do not vote for the amendment because we need reform, and we need it now. Next example, where the attorneys were awarded $4 million, what did the plaintiffs get? Thirty-three cents, only after they sent in for it, costing them 34 cents. So a net loss of one cent. If Members do not think there is at least a need for reform, vote for the amendment. If Members agree that there is abuse, then they had better vote for the amendment because it will occur regardless otherwise. If it goes to State court or Federal court, goes back to State court, we have the abuse again. It does not solve anything. I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It is the only way reform will occur. Vote against the amendment. If Members vote for the amendment, no reform occurs. If Members believe that we have fraudulent abuse as it stands, Members have to vote against the amendment. If Members believe the situation, the status quo is fine, then certainly vote for the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a remarkable event that occurred last Thursday on the island of Cuba. According to Reuters, ``In an apparently unprecedented move during Fidel Castro's 43-year rule, a group of dissidents says it has gathered 10,000 signatures to ask the Cuban parliament for a referendum on political reforms.'' ``We are proposing a consultation with the people so that they can decide about change,'' a leading moderate dissident, Oswaldo Paya, who is the main promoter of the so-called Varela Project, told Reuters late on Wednesday. The project, named for the pro-independence Catholic Priest Felix Varela, is based on Article 88 of the Cuban constitution, which says new legislation may be proposed by citizens if more than 10,000 voters support them. The proposed referendum, Paya says, would be on the need to guarantee rights of freedom of expression and association and amnesty for political prisoners; more opportunities for private businesses; and new electoral law and a general election. Unfortunately, it is virtually certain that the National Assembly will reject the referendum. Mr. Speaker, I include these two articles and state for the Record that these dissidents from Cuba deserve to be seen and heard. [From the Associated Press, Mar. 8, 2002] Cubans Seeking Political Change (By Anita Snow) Havana.--Cuban dissidents said Friday they have collected 10,000 signatures needed to force a referendum on overhauling the government, a move unprecedented in communist Cuba. Miguel Saludes of Cuba's Christian Liberation Movement said activists were checking the signatures to verify their authenticity. The petition will then be delivered to Cuba's National Assembly, he said. He would not say when activists expected to have the document ready. The proposed referendum, known as the Varela Project, appears to be the first signature-gathering effort to get this far under the government of Fidel Castro (news-- web sites), in power for 43 years. The referendum would ask voters whether they think guarantees are needed to assure the rights of free speech and association and whether they support an amnesty for political prisoners. It would also call for new electoral laws and more opportunities for Cubans to run their own private businesses. Castro's government has not commented publicly on the effort. Previous petition efforts have stalled in part because people were afraid to sign, but in the decade since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the government has shown slightly more tolerance for opposition groups. The project is named for Father Felix Varela, a Roman Catholic priest who fought for the emancipation of slaves on the Caribbean island. The referendum was first mentioned by the Christian Liberation Movement shortly after Pope John Paul (news--web sites) II's visit here in January 1998. The Cuban Commission for Human Rights and Reconciliation and the Democratic Solidarity Party later joined the Christian Liberation Movement in helping coordinate the signature-gathering drive. The groups have been gathering signatures across the island since early last year. All three groups operate here without the approval of the government, which regularly characterizes its opponents as ``counter-revolutionaries'' and ``mercenaries'' for the U.S. government and Cuban exiles.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I want to commend my colleague from California for putting together a great package. This is similar to the package we passed back in December. The most important thing we can do, obviously, for the economy is to stimulate, and that is why this package is a good one. It actually has stimulation. It ought to stimulate the economy. And the notion that simply extending someone's unemployment benefits will somehow stimulate the economy is absurd. We have to get away from that. We see the other side trot out packages, gifts, Valentines that we are supposedly sending out. I would submit that that is the problem. We take the money and will only give it back by giving it as a gift, a gift that we can bestow, our almightiness here; we can bestow a gift on the American people by giving them back some of their money. It is their money. We ought to not take so much of it. If we want to stimulate the economy, we should not. That is why this bill is a good one, and that is why I would urge support. It is not unfair to let people keep their own money. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) for yielding me time. We are told the purpose of this legislation is to lessen the influence of corporations on the political process. We are told that James Madison would not recognize the system we have today. I would submit that James Madison would be appalled if he knew of the blatant inconsistencies we have in the bill. Corporations cannot spend their treasury money in the last 60 days of an election. However, if you consider that the parent company of CNN spent $2 billion in soft money last year, yet they will be able to speak during the last 60 days of an election unabated. They have a media exemption. The parent company of ABC spent $1 million last year in soft money to both parties; NBC nearly a half million dollars; CBS, 23,000; Fox nearly 700,000. Yet these entities will be able to speak within the last 60 days like nobody else. If you wonder why the big media corporations support this legislation it is because they will be the only one ones standing after this is passed. If that is not inconsistent, what is? Now, are the supporters of this legislation blind to this? I would submit they are not. Just a few months ago supporters of this legislation were pushing for hearings on the fact that one of the parent companies of NBC tried to weigh in with NBC on when to call the election for one of the candidates in Florida. If that is not a conflict of interest, what is? We have got to recognize that you cannot treat one corporation differently than another. This is just one of the problems with the bill, and I would urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. We have come full circle. It is 10:30 on a Wednesday night, and I think we have heard just about everything. We have heard that soft money is evil, yet now it is okay. We have heard from the other side that we have to do without it, but now we cannot do without it. We have heard that we have to get rid of it, but now we need it to collateralize loans for hard money and then to pay off hard money loans through an amendment in the middle of the night that nobody seems to want to own up to. We have heard it all. Let us call this what it is. It is a blatant attempt to buy the last couple of votes needed for this bill, and it keeps getting worse and worse and worse. I wonder at what point people will stand up and say, enough. This is not the bill we started out with. It keeps getting worse. We have come full circle. Soft money is bad; now it is not only good, it is necessary to promote grassroots activity. Which is it? Please tell us. I urge support of the Emerson amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The supporters of this legislation wonder why the opponents of the legislation seem to be wanting to single out groups for special protection. I would submit that they ought to know why. It is because the legislation actually singles out corporations for special treatment. If my colleagues wonder why the media, the big media, are so much in favor of this bill, it is because they are the only ones left standing once it passes. The parent company of MSNBC contributed about $2 million in soft money last year to the political process here. The parent company of CNN contributed $2.5 million last year in soft money. Yet they can speak through their media subsidiary. They are treated differently. They are given a media exemption. Now, if my colleagues are yelling at the other side for offering amendments which single out individual groups and saying they should be able to speak, and saying that that is wrong, why do my colleagues give a media exemption to corporate-owned media? Why do my colleagues treat corporations, some corporations, differently than others? This is just one example of the blatant inconsistencies of the bill. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the Combest amendment and a ``no'' vote on Shays-Meehan.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In case you wonder why the big media outlets, NBC, CBS, ABC and others, are such big supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill, it is not very tough to figure out they will be the only ones left standing, the only ones left able to speak within the 60 days before the election. And if my colleagues think for a minute these media corporations or these corporations that own media outlets are not biased or that they do not have an axe to grind here in Washington, consider for a minute: Microsoft Corporation, which owns MSNBC, $2,311,926 in soft money last year, or in the last cycle, $820,000 in hard money from their PAC. They spent nearly $5 million lobbying the Congress in 1999. Go down the list: Walt Disney, which owns ABC, over $1 million in soft money, $283,000 in hard money, and spent nearly $3.5 million lobbying the Congress in 1999. Now, these corporations will be able to speak 60 days before the election. Unlike interest groups or unlike individuals or others, they are allowed to speak. They are allowed to say whatever they want, as they should be. But if we are going to curtail the speech of others, then why not at least require disclosure on the part of the large corporate media outlets? Should Shays-Meehan be the base bill, I have an amendment that I will offer which would require such disclosure. We cannot stand and say that we want campaign finance reform that is so unbalanced. And I say those who want campaign finance reform should want to apply it equally across the board. Of course, that is not what this is really about. This is about showing our constituents that we really care about campaign finance reform. I think it is a sham, and I would urge rejection of the rule and rejection of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Madam Speaker, this is an issue I have been working on for a number of months, beginning with the introduction of the Visa Integrity and Security Act with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal). This bill is an admirable and comprehensive enhancement of these efforts, which were largely included in the patriot antiterrorism legislation. H.R. 3525 puts the focus of the problems in the system that will make it possible for terrorists to enter the country and live in the United States undetected, sometimes for years. By passing this bill, we are recognizing that those who are charged with defending the United States from persons who wish to do her harm will have the right tools necessary to man the front lines. This legislation provides the necessary tools. From consular officers who will have the first encounter with visa applicants to the border officials that process their departure documents, this bill will utilize forward-looking technology to target those who are the problem: the terrorists, not the immigrants. I urge passage of H.R. 3525.