Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. This is good for everyone and it means real jobs. The notion that these jobs are not real, that this bill does not create jobs is simply not the case. It doesn't square with the facts. I urge adoption of this rule so we can debate this bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of H.R. 358, the Protect Life Act, of which I'm a cosponsor. It's been the practice of this House for decades to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion except in rare cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. This is typically done by attaching language to appropriation bills that go through this House. Unfortunately, we don't always have regular order. Appropriation bills this year are likely to see a minibus or an omnibus or a vehicle that might not lend itself to attachment of this language. So I think it is prudent what the House is doing today to ensure that this language goes into legislation to make sure that federal funds are not used for abortion services and to carry on the will of this body. For that, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of all three free trade agreements that will be on the floor today. In an era where we have a near-constant supply of Federal bailouts and stimulus packages and Federal spending, it is refreshing that Congress is doing today what it should be doing, and that is creating an environment in a bipartisan way under which businesses can create jobs and the economy can flourish. It's the appropriate role of Congress to take these kinds of steps, to simply create an environment and then step out of the way and let businesses create these jobs. Arizona alone had more than $15 billion worth of merchandise exports in 2010. More than half was exported to countries with which we have free trade agreements. These three free trade agreements today will only expand the opportunities for that to increase. These arrangements will allow the private sector to create thousands of new jobs and strengthen the economy in the long term. Again, that is the appropriate role for government, to create an environment where the private sector can create jobs. That's what free trade agreements do. That's why I'm pleased to support these agreements today.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, what happens at the United Nations this week will have a profound and lasting effect on the prospects for peace in the Middle East. If the Palestinian Authority succeeds in obtaining U.N. recognition for a Palestinian state, it will only delay genuine efforts at a negotiated settlement. Israel has, for many years, cooperated in good faith with Palestinian and international efforts to mediate peace and work toward a two-state solution. It has made many concessions, some of which were not always in Israel's best interest. The Palestinians, unsatisfied with these efforts at the negotiating table, are seeking an end-run around Israel in an attempt to gain statehood by means of the United Nations. Watching this spectacle unfold, I was reminded of the time I spent in Namibia in the late eighties and early nineties, where the U.N. General Assembly had arbitrarily designated one of the political parties the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. That had the effect of delaying the negotiating process that ultimately led to Namibia's independence. The same designation was awarded several decades ago to the PLO, and it had a similar effect. The U.S. Government should use all the tools at its disposal, fiscal and otherwise, to ensure that that same outcome is avoided here.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. FLAKE. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I didn't plan on speaking, but I couldn't help after hearing the comments, and I would gladly yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady if she wants to explain further. I have never heard this used as a measurement before, as a positive measurement, the number of jobs per megawatt for solar power. Now, I'm from Arizona. I like solar power. It's great. But since when are we using, as a positive, the number of jobs it takes to create a megawatt? Will it be seen as a positive in the future if it takes more jobs to create a megawatt? Is that a good thing for the economy? Is that a jobs program of some type? I mean, it just baffles me sometimes at the arguments that are made as to why we should keep programs like this going and keep spending. I would be glad to yield time to the gentlelady if she wants to explain that further.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady, but that is precisely the opposite of the number of jobs per megawatt. If nuclear creates more energy for fewer jobs and less cost, that's the direction we should go because it's nonpolluting as well. But this notion that we have to keep this going because it just creates jobs and jobs per megawatt, it just baffles me. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We're borrowing 41 cents on every dollar. We ought to save money where we can. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit Members from purchasing online advertisements that link to a Web site that is maintained by their MRA. This appropriations bill will fund the legislative branch through much of the next election cycle. We all know, as I said before, incumbents tend to have a natural advantage over challengers in elections; 98 percent of incumbents are typically reelected. It is largely due to the benefits that we currently have. We shouldn't try to make those better than they are naturally. Members are allowed to use funds in order to design and obtain an official Web site through house.gov. That is perfectly appropriate, and I am glad we are able to do that. We all have our Web sites that we maintain using our funds, and people should be able to contact their Members of Congress, and that is the easiest way to contact us at this point. Members are also allowed to maintain various profiles on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Google Plus, and ones that will be created in the future. Aside from the salaries and expenses of a Member's staff and computers, maintaining a social networking profile doesn't cost anything to the taxpayers. However, some Members have been using official funds to pay for ads that link either to their official Web site or to one of their social networking profiles. I would submit that while it may serve our purposes, by its very nature, purchasing advertising provides a Member an opportunity for promotion that facilitates greater name identification. Is not broadening name recognition and identification a classic responsibility of a Member's campaign activities? If there is even a chance that taxpayer money on online ads could be viewed by Members as promoting themselves for campaign purposes, we should not allow it. Especially now that we are in this budget crisis, we shouldn't be allowing Members to use their MRA or taxpayer money to purchase advertising to drive people to their official sites or their social networking sites. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I would say in response that we already have lines that we have drawn. We don't allow Members simply to advertise out on the Internet like a campaign would. That's paid for by campaign activities, not by taxpayer dollars. Yet this is something that has grown and evolved just over the past couple of years, the ability to buy advertisements that drive people to your Web site. This isn't something that we could have foreseen 10 years ago. It has just evolved. We need to bring our regulations in line with current technology. I would submit that buying online advertising to basically increase your name identification should be beyond what our official money should be used for. There are plenty of ways that Members can announce town halls, service academy nominations, seminars, or any other event that they need to host without buying online advertising with taxpayer dollars. That's what this amendment is about. The gentleman before brought up a point: Why don't we just take this kind of thing to the Franking Commission or to the administration of the House and say let's change the rules rather than doing it here? I can tell you why. Typically, there is a partisan environment against spending or against this or against that where you have some kind of debate. But in this case, Republicans and Democrats work together to protect incumbents because we are all incumbents here. Unless you can let the public know what is going on in a forum like this which you don't get when you just go to the Franking Commission, you don't get change. I can tell you that sending out four-color glossy brochures, as I mentioned in the last amendment, or buying online advertising to direct people to your official site does not pass the smell test or the laugh test outside the Beltway in terms of what taxpayer money should be spent on. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I would simply say in response that the gentleman says that we shouldn't be in the business of telling Members what they can mail and when they can mail it. We already are in that business. We do that. We already have a line drawn, 90 days before an election, and we say you can't mail these four-color glossy brochures after 90 days because it would be seen and perceived as electioneering. But what about 91 days before an election? We have an office here that tells the Members what words they can use to describe a Medicare benefit or some bill that has been passed. If you use it in one way, they say that's disallowed. We shouldn't be in that business. That's the business we shouldn't be in. And we wouldn't be in that business if we just said, hey, don't do electioneering at taxpayer expense. We all know, believe me, when you see those four-color glossies, you know that's a campaign mailer at taxpayer expense. So we're not fooling anybody by saying we have rules that prohibit it, and let's just stick to the rules of the House. We do have lines that are drawn; they're just drawn in the wrong place. And I can tell you nothing feeds the cynicism around the country about us, Members of Congress, than to get one of those mailers and see the tiny print there, ``Paid for at taxpayer expense.'' We shouldn't be in that business. During the fiscal year 2010 appropriations process the newspaper Roll Call noted that: The House Chief Administrative Officer asked appropriators to raise the Members' Representational Allowances, or MRA, which fund everything needed to run offices, including salaries, travel and supplies, by $90 million, citing increases due to the election year cycle. Now, why would an election year cycle be any more expensive than any other? It's because Members all rush to get these glossy mailers out before the 90-day deadline. And we send the 499s. We send 499, you know why? Because anything over 500 is prohibited, so Members will send 499 of them. It's electioneering. We know it. We're not fooling anybody. We ought to draw the line back a bit so we don't feed this cynicism around the country that says that incumbents have advantages that challengers or others running in these races every 2 years don't. And that's the truth. Speaking here as an incumbent, we have enough advantages, believe me. We can get on television whenever we want. We can stand here at the pulpit late at night, or otherwise, and offer amendments. We can get our mug on television all we want to. We shouldn't have the advantage of sending out four-color glossy mailers at taxpayer expense. That's what this amendment is about, and I urge adoption of it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would simply require that all mail sent by Members, committees, and leadership offices be on the official letterhead of the sending office. This amendment would not prevent Members from sending mass mailings or the so-called ``499s.'' The specific intent of the amendment is to prohibit the use of the four-color glossy mailers that Members occasionally send and that are paid for at taxpayer expense. They are virtually indistinguishable at times from campaign mailers. If I were to hold up an example of franked mail sent out at taxpayer expense with a little tiny disclaimer there saying ``paid for at taxpayer expense''--four-color glossy with a big touched-up photo of the Member standing there, typically--you would not be able to tell the difference, unless you looked very, very closely, between that and campaign mailers that are sent out and paid for at the campaign expense. I think that in this era, particularly given the budget constraints that we're under, for Members of Congress to be sending out what is essentially campaign mail at taxpayer expense should be forbidden. We shouldn't be able to do that. We have certain rules that even prohibit the mailing of these mailers within 90 days of an election. So we recognize as a body, as an institution, that these are essentially instruments of a campaign; yet we allow it before 90 days. I would say that we are already drawing a line. That line is simply drawn in the wrong place. We should prohibit these four-color glossy mailers from being sent out at taxpayer expense. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, this has been a fascinating debate. Members on both sides of the aisle stand and claim moral superiority when it comes to the debt that we've accumulated. There is plenty of blame to go around. When Republicans had majorities in both the House and the Senate and when there was a Republican in the White House, we behaved badly, from No Child Left Behind to prescription drug benefits, bloated farm bills, swollen highway bills, bridges to nowhere, pork strewn everywhere. Let's be honest, we were headed toward this fiscal cliff long before the current President took the wheel. So here we are today, Mr. Speaker. It matters little who drove what shift. What matters is that we, both parties, are teetering on the fiscal cliff, getting ready to drag the country into the abyss. Fortunately, the 2006 midterm elections sent many of us on a detour on the road to Damascus, and we are here today with a cut, cap, and balance plan that will put us back on sure financial footing. If the other side of the aisle has a plan that does not entail more of the same behavior that got us here, we should consider that plan. To date, we have seen no such plan. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this cut, cap, and balance legislation.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 573, I mistakenly voted nay instead of yea. It had been my intention to support final passage of H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011. While I am aware that a vote may not be changed after a rollcall vote has been closed, I would like the Record to reflect this error and to reiterate my support for H.R. 2018.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. You know, with an energy resource as old as fossil energy, we're talking fossil fuels, we're talking Big Oil. We always hear from the other side of the aisle, Quit subsidizing Big Oil. And here we are directly saying we're going to give them research. You know, some of the companies that directly receive grants under the plan I think are companies like Chevron or others to develop energy in the gulf or whatever else. Why in the world are we subsidizing that? We are hearing that they have profits, billions and billions of dollars just in the quarter, not just the year, and yet here we are subsidizing them again to more efficiently use fossil energy? Now, fossil energy has been around a long time. It's not exactly a notion that no research goes into it. And it's going to be around for a lot longer still. Why in the world is the Federal Government saying we need to subsidize these companies who are conducting research on use and efficiency for fossil energy? If we can't cut here, again, where can we cut? If we're going to stand up for Big Oil when it comes to spending money here, then where can we cut? I'm just flabbergasted when I come down to the floor and look at what we're funding and subsidizing here. But yet I hear the rhetoric about how we need to make sure that they're paying taxes and whatever else. I think they should. I think we ought to get rid of the corporate subsidies, all of these kinds of corporate subsidies. But why in the world are we developing programs to spend billions of dollars overall, millions in this case, to help these for-profit companies that we blast in one breath and then subsidize with the next? Where does it end, Mr. Chairman? If we can't cut here, where can we cut? Again, this is fossil energy. It's been around a long time. It will be around a long time. We don't need to subsidize it. And remember, every dollar we spend here is a dollar that we have borrowed from people across the country, from taxpayers, from investors, from venture capitalists, from others who would invest it far more wisely than we would here. The best allocation of capital resources is through the free market, not by government fiat or subsidy. We've learned that over time, but yet we persist in doing this time after time after time. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. This amendment would prohibit funds from going to the Fossil Energy Research and Development program. The Fossil Energy Research and Development program is set to receive nearly $500 million through this appropriation bill. The committee report recommends that no less than $25 million be used to continue research in certain areas. But we shouldn't have any money going to subsidize Big Oil. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I know there are a lot of people that are offering amendments, so I will try to move very quickly here. This amendment would simply prohibit funds from going to the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E. There is ARPA-Defense, there is ARPA other stuff, there is ARPA-E. This is what we are trying to do is prohibit funding from going to ARPA-E, or energy. ARPA-E is currently set to receive about $100 million in this appropriation bill. The most compelling argument given to defund ARPA-E is found on its own Web site, which states that it was established ``to focus on creative, out-of-the-box transformational energy research that industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk, but where success would provide dramatic benefits.'' It is this kind of, I guess, out-of-the-box thinking that has gotten us into this deficit that we're running, about $1.6 trillion. We are broke. We are borrowing 41 cents on every dollar that we spend, yet still we find within our budget reason to find $100 million to fund energy research in private companies that others won't fund because it's too risky. Now, we're not talking about products for defense for which there is no commercial application; we're talking about private sector research that could reap a windfall for some private company, and has in a number of other areas. But yet we believe that it's prudent to borrow-- because we're borrowing everything here--borrow money from the taxpayer to pick and choose favored companies to receive this research money. It's not right. We ought to defund it. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I'm just hoping that this amendment doesn't rise to the level of being the most ridiculous amendment that the gentleman from Washington has ever seen.

Mr. FLAKE. They usually do. But I would just say again here, we're not talking about things in national security or in defense for which there is no commercial application, for which companies that invest in this kind of research would not reap a windfall, the reason for which the profit motive incentivizes companies to invest in these things. Why in the world does government have to be the investor of last resort in what are, quote, transformational energy research for which the industry by itself cannot or will not support due to its high risk? I mean, if it's that high risk, believe me, we shouldn't be taking it. If venture capital out there won't do it, we shouldn't be doing it either with money that we're borrowing from venture capitalists and others who have a little better idea than we do. When we go out and support corn ethanol for 30 years, for crying out loud, or some of these other things and we keep doing it and saying, Yeah, it's going to come around one of these days and this is just a promising new area of research, come on. We're $14 trillion in debt. We have negotiations going on right now over at the White House or somewhere else trying to figure a way to raise the debt ceiling to spend more. Isn't it time that we review programs like this, where we are trying to replace what is not happening in the private sector or trying to outguess the private sector? And I just tell you, if we can't cut here, I don't know where we're going to cut, I really don't. The gentleman made the point that we are down to 2006 levels. Great. We ought to go further than that. I mean, 2006, we act as if that was a Great Depression year, ``Grapes of Wrath'' music playing or something. It wasn't exactly that. We have seen ramping up year after year after year in some of these programs. We are spending more than we ever have. So I would urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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