Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I want to thank the gentleman for his work in this area for a long time over the years to try to end these out-of-step programs that we have in the agricultural field. Let me just correct something that was said before. It was said that we're in this position because of Brazil, because of the practices that they're doing. No. It's because our own agricultural policy--in this case, our cotton subsidies--is trade distorting. Nobody can stand up in this body or on this floor and make a case otherwise. Nobody can stand up with a straight face and say that our cotton program that we have is not trade distorting. That's why we're in this problem. That's why Brazil was able to take this case to the WTO, and the WTO ruled in their favor--because we have trade distorting farm policies. That's what we need to fix. That's the intent of this amendment. There was an amendment last night by Congressman Kind that will be voted on later today. I may not and likely will not call for a rollcall on this one so that people can focus on that one. The Kind amendment limits payments to Brazil. If we do that, then we can force a change in our own policy, and we can force that issue better than perhaps any other amendment right now. So that's what I would encourage people to vote for, is the Kind amendment, when it comes to a rollcall later. If you do not believe that it's proper to be sending money to Brazil to address our own trade distorting cotton policy, then vote for the Kind amendment later today. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. Suffice it to say, there's a long list of organizations supporting this. Everyone on the right from Americans for Limited Government, Americans for Prosperity; on the left, Freedom Action, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace; then everyone in the middle, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Milk Producers Council, National Chicken Council, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Meat Association, National Turkey Federation, National Wildlife Federation, and on and on and on. This is a great amendment and I urge its adoption. This amendment is supported by the following organizations: Action Aid USA; American Frozen Food Institute; American Meat Institute; Americans for Limited Government; Americans for Prosperity; California Dairies, Inc.; Clean Air Task Force; Competitive Enterprise Institute; Environmental Working Group; Friends of the Earth; Freedom Action; Greenpeace USA; Grocery Manufacturers Association; Milk Producers Council; National Chicken Council; National Council of Chain Restaurants; National Meat Association; National Restaurant Association; National Turkey Federation; National Wildlife Federation; Oxfam America; Southeast Milk, Inc.; Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, as I'm certain my colleagues are aware by now, in 2002 Brazil filed a complaint with the WTO accusing the U.S. of trade-distorting cotton subsidies that were inconsistent with our international trade obligations. The WTO sided with Brazil; and after years of debate, a WTO arbitration panel authorized Brazil to engage in retaliatory trade sanctions against the U.S. for more than $800 million. Instead of effectively reforming our programs, however, the administration agreed to pay $147.3 million annually in technical assistance to Brazilian cotton farmers every year until the issues of trade compliance in our cotton programs are resolved in the next farm bill's passage or a mutually agreed upon solution is reached. There is little chance that we're going to have reauthorization this year of the farm bill. I would suggest that it's probably not likely that we will do so next year either. So here we are again. We've talked about this before: spending money, 147 million taxpayer dollars to the Brazilians, so that we can continue to subsidize our own cotton farmers. We simply shouldn't do that. Now some will say, hey, if we do this, it will spark a trade war, if we get rid of this payment to Brazil. In my view, we dealt with that effectively in the Appropriations Committee. I offered an amendment saying if you want to pay the Brazilians off to not have them retaliate for our trade protections, then let's do that out of the money we're giving to our own cotton farmers. So take out of direct payments $147 million and pay that. That amendment was adopted in the Appropriations Committee. Well, guess what? A point of order was raised here and that amendment was stricken, so we couldn't do that. So all this concern--people say they're concerned about the taxpayer, well, we protected the taxpayer there by saying let's take the money out of the fund that we already pay our own farmers and pay off the Brazilians. That was rejected here. And so here we are again. We have an amendment that will be voted on later, the Kind amendment, which will simply strike that payment. I plan to vote for that amendment; I hope we do that. But another way of approaching that as well is to simply go at our own cotton subsidies to ensure that we're not distorting the market by doing this program in the first place. Now the Ag Committee will say, that's our expertise, let us deal with that; we'll deal with that in a new farm bill. Well, they dealt with that in the old farm bill, and many of us stood here and warned and said this is trade distorting; the WTO is going to rule against us and we're going to end up with retaliatory trade sanctions. Well, the Ag Committee went ahead and did it anyway. It didn't fix the problem. They will say, well, we tried, we tried. But it's not the direct payments that are the problem. It's the countercyclical, it's the other programs that we have. And until that is dealt with, we're going to have these trade sanctions. So when the Ag Committee stands up and says let us deal with that, I would remind people we have let them deal with that, and they haven't dealt with it. And so we have to go about it in another way. I would simply say we cannot continue to subsidize our own ag interests this way, in particular this cotton program, when we know it's out of step with our international trade obligations. So you can go about it in two ways. You can go ahead and say, hey, we're going to not pay Brazil this amount, this protection money--or whatever you want to call it, this tribute--and then that will force us to deal with our own cotton subsidies; or we can deal with the cotton subsidies ourselves with this amendment and simply say we aren't going to do these trade-distorting cotton subsidies anymore. Then there won't be a need to pay Brazil off. So that's what this amendment does. I would urge adoption of it. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentleman yield?

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the appropriations process isn't the best way to legislate, it really isn't, and this is a clumsy way. This only applies to this act, and you have to do it in strange ways. I understand that. But we are told that we ought to rely on the expertise of the Ag Committee. Well, the expertise of the Ag Committee is what got us into this problem in the first place. It is what got us into the problem of having to pay Brazil in order to continue to subsidize our own farmers. That is what we are dealing with here. I recognize this is clumsy. I recognize this is uncomfortable. But we have got to do this some way, and we can't rely on just waiting until the next farm bill is passed. It may not be this year, or likely won't be. It won't be next year, or likely won't yet. So we could be doing this for years. So I recognize it is clumsy, I apologize for that, but we have to do something at some point.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, administered by the USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service, the MAP program uses funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation to aid the development, expansion and maintenance of foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. It does so by forming partnerships with nonprofit trade organizations and cooperatives, nonprofit State regional trade groups, small businesses and others to market our products overseas. In a perfect world, if there is a lot of money hanging around to do something, this might be a good thing to do to help these small companies market their products overseas. I would argue that is really not the proper role and function of government, but people could argue when times are good, let's do that. But we are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar. Every dollar that we spend on this kind of thing is borrowed. And we are borrowing money to subsidize companies, small and large, to market their products overseas. A while ago, The New York Times shined some light on this program. They spotlighted the ridiculousness of a fashion show in India put on with taxpayer money in partnership with the cotton industry's Cotton Council International. Here we are subsidizing a fashion show in India in partnership with the Cotton Council International. The article notes that ``over the last decade, the program has provided nearly $2 billion in taxpayer money to agricultural trade associations and farmer cooperatives. These promotions are as varied as a manual for pet owners in Japan and a class at a Mexican culinary school to teach aspiring chefs how to cook rice for Mexican customers.'' Come on. We are spending money that we are borrowing for this kind of activity. You will hear arguments for every dollar we spend in this, it yields $20 in returned income or whatever else. You always hear that when you hear about government spending that people want to protect. But let me say, when we are running debt and deficits like we are today, we shouldn't be running programs like this. We ought to save money where we can. Time magazine also noted here that a lot of the money goes to large farmer-owned cooperatives. It will be portrayed it is just helping small businesses, that there have been reforms to make sure it doesn't go to corporations like McDonald's or whatever else. But this article noted that corporations like Sunkist, Welch's and Blue Diamond, which grows and sells almonds, combined these three companies had over $2 billion in sales in 2009. These aren't small companies, yet we are subsidizing them. We are subsidizing the promotion of their products overseas. I am glad they are exporting. I hope they continue to export. But they don't need to do it with taxpayer money. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. This is a rather straightforward amendment. I should say, before I start, that an identical amendment to this was approved when we voted on H.R. 1 earlier this year by a vote of 261-158.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kind amendment. I commend the gentleman from Wisconsin for offering this. You know, we've heard here that we need this program to make us trade compliant. Many of us warned when we did the last farm bill that if we did this level of subsidies that it would run afoul of our trade agreements. Yet we plowed ahead and did it anyway. And then April of last year is when our farm programs, which on their best day are out of step with reality, moved into the realm of the absurd when we hatched a program to actually fund an institute in Brazil to fund the cotton industry there to start subsidizing the Brazilians so that we could continue to subsidize our own farmers. Is that not absurd? Why are we continuing to do this? It was raised before that we've got to do this to make us trade compliant now where tariffs might be imposed. That is true, but I offered an amendment in the committee earlier on that would have taken money from the direct payments that we currently pay to cotton farmers and paid off the Brazilians with that money rather than raid the Treasury and raid the taxpayers once again. And guess what? That passed in committee but was stricken when it came to the floor. So when you hear all this rhetoric about, hey, we want to be trade compliant, we could have done that. We could have simply allowed that amendment to stick in the bill, and then this would have been trade compliant. But the Brazilians would have been paid off not with new taxpayer money but with the money that is making us non-trade compliant in the first place. So don't believe what you're hearing about, we just want to be trade compliant; that's what this is about. We offered an alternative to that, and it was rejected. And so here we are asking the taxpayers to once again this year, $147 million to the Brazilians to make us trade compliant. We've got to stop this. Nobody really believes that we're going to do a farm bill this year. Nobody really believes we're going to do one next year. And so we're going to be doing this year after year after year, so that means that we're going to continue to do this unless we stop it. I can tell you if we pass the Kind amendment tonight, we will be back and we'll reform our cotton subsidies in a way that will make us trade compliant. We'll go back and accept the Flake amendment that passed in the Appropriations Committee that perhaps took the money from the cotton program. We don't need to continue to ask the taxpayers to pay off the Brazilians so that we can continue out-of-step subsidies to our own farmers. That's what this amendment is about. I commend the gentleman for offering it. And I would yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. FLAKE. I just want to make a point that everybody needs to take a haircut here if we are going to get this debt and deficit under control. We shouldn't ask the taxpayers once again to pay off the Brazilians so we can continue out-of-step subsidies to our own farmers. We have a cotton industry in Arizona. They may take a hit because of this, but everybody has to take a haircut. Everybody has to contribute here to getting this deficit and this debt under control. And if we can't start with a program like this, I don't know where we'll start. After this amendment, I plan to offer an amendment that will go after the programs that actually make us nontrade compliant. I will be glad to give up on that amendment, not offer it at all, if this amendment is allowed to pass. But if it is called for the ``noes,'' then I plan to offer the amendment after this. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today in support of the Kucinich resolution. I had hoped to be able to support the Boehner resolution. I share the Speaker's concern that a precipitous withdrawal called for by the Kucinich resolution sends a less than optimal signal to our NATO allies. Yet, while we are on the subject of signals, I am far more concerned about the puzzling, confusing, mystifying signal that we send by passing a resolution that affirms that the President has not fulfilled his constitutional or statutory obligations, yet offers no remedy, only a mild rebuke, followed by a questionnaire. Madam Speaker, I was here in 2001 when we authorized the use of force to enter Afghanistan. There was just one dissenting vote. When a genuine threat to our national security is perceived, it has been the longstanding practice of Congress to support the administration in its actions. The greater threat today, in my view, is the perpetual acquiescence of this body, in situations such as we face today in Libya, where we tolerate the use of military force when the threat to our national security is less obvious.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Both gentlemen speaking here are right. This requirement, the executive order, does not mandate the use of PLAs. However, some agencies have taken it and interpreted it as such that it should mandate it. Let me give you one example here. On October 15, 2010, just a few months ago, the Army Corps of Engineers issued PIL 211-1 to all Army Corps contracting offices providing implementing guidance for the use of PLAs on Army Corps construction contracts. The following are major PIL elements. Here it is, requires the project delivery team, PDT, to consider the use of the PLA on a project-by-project basis by conducting a PLA labor market survey during acquisition planning.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. But then it goes further so there was a complaint because some people didn't want that in. The complaint came back and the Army Corps came back and said that they should receive additional consideration if they do use a PLA and that should be strictly forbidden. And so there is--there is a problem here. We do have a problem here with the agencies interpreting this in a way that would require the use of the PLA or give added weight to the use of a PLA. Now, when the gentleman says this amendment is not required because it's not prescriptive, the current law without the executive order is the same thing. They can consider the use of a PLA. Nothing prohibits that now. So all the Executive order is doing is giving some agencies reason to maybe mandate the use of a PLA. And that's why we're trying to strike the Executive order. The scenario that the gentleman from Washington describes where nobody is requiring or mandating anything, that exists without the Executive order. So that's what we're trying to do here is remove that Executive order that gives added weight to PLAs. Now, in Arizona, for example, 90-some percent of workers there are not union workers. They don't want a PLA. And if you have a project that gives added weight to PLAs, that disenfranchises a lot of people in Arizona, more than 90 percent of the population. So we just can't do that. We shouldn't do that. And so the gentleman's amendment should be accepted. We did a similar one. It was accepted in the Appropriations Committee with regard to the MilCon budget, the MilCon appropriation bill. And so that will come to the floor with this amendment already in it. I would suggest to the gentleman from Washington and others who oppose this that we're simply trying to get back to a time where PLAs can be considered but they aren't construed as being necessary or mandated by the agencies.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. It might be. And without the Executive order, they can consider that. Nothing prohibits that. But the problem is that the Executive order has led to a situation where some agencies interpret that as requiring a PLA, and that's what we're trying to get away from. And so the amendment is a good one. I would urge its adoption, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it forward. This will be consistent with another appropriation bill that is coming to the floor with this already in, already having been accepted by the Appropriations Committee. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the gentleman's efforts to get rid of earmarks. I do have some concern about this. The guidance from the HASC, from the committee, says that the request may not direct funds to, or any funds with or to, any entity or locality. It's been the practice in the past that when Members get their earmarks in a bill, they will take a victory lap, put out a press release. I have seen one of these already, and it says funding for a nonprofit charitable foundation, Technology Ventures Corporation, TVC, to help expand innovation in New Mexico's emerging satellite industry. This names both an entity and a locality. And this is a Member who got a particular request.

Mr. FLAKE

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

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