Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, this amendment is similar to amendments I have offered in the past on authorization bills. It simply states that none of the money authorized in this legislation for grant programs or for other purposes can be earmarked later by Members of Congress. We are often told that we don't plan to earmark this money, but we have seen in the past that many of the grant programs or other moneys that are authorized are later earmarked. For example, the Emergency Operations Center in a FEMA bill, 60 percent of the funds for the grant program were later earmarked. We can't have this, Madam Chair. If we're going to authorize a program, if we're going to say that moneys are available for specific purposes, we shouldn't come in later and simply take all that money from those accounts through earmarking. These amendments have been accepted in the past by the majority, and I hope that this one will be as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I move the previous question on the resolution itself.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 255, commemorating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and honoring the founder of Earth Day, former Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin. For the past 40 years, citizens all across the United States have come together once a year to celebrate the wonder of planet Earth on Earth Day. Every April 22 Americans from all parts of the country, from coastal regions to mountainous regions to forested regions and the many other incredibly diverse regions of this country, take time to admire and enjoy the beauty and splendor of our environment. Earth Day allows all people to realize the importance of ensuring that our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy the beauty of the planet for generations to come. Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin founded Earth Day because of his love for our planet and the environment. As Senator Nelson said in a speech on Earth Day, ``Earth Day is dramatic evidence of the broad new national concern that cuts across generations and ideologies. It may be symbolic of a new communication between young and old about values and priorities.'' A veteran of World War II and Governor of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson served in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. During his career in both State and national politics, he promoted many environmental causes and worked tirelessly to preserve the planet for future generations. In 1995, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his public service throughout his career. Despite his many accomplishments, Earth Day was his most important and lasting legacy. Just on a personal note, one thing that he advocated, and I think we advocate with Earth Day, is to get outside in the environment and enjoy what's around us. Last year I did that to the extreme, I think. I was dropped off on a little island in the middle of the Pacific. And for a week I didn't see another person, I didn't see a plane, I didn't see an automobile, I didn't see a boat, I saw nothing. Just a lot of fish and hermit crabs and others.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, in closing, I just want to urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It's a great cause. And certainly I think we all owe it to our constituents and to the country to recognize the stewardship that we have to ensure that we pass on the planet as good as we got it or better to future generations.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for that. I doubt I will need an agent or that they will come calling. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a metaphor for the fate of congressional Republicans, being isolated on an island either. But it was a great opportunity, without any outside influences at all, to be there and to see nature at its finest. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I continue to reserve my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for introducing this resolution. And I urge my colleagues to support it. We want to express our condolences to the families and the friends and loved ones of those who perished in the fire and wish a speedy recovery to the one who is still injured. We want to make sure also that this fire is investigated and we, to the extent possible, can make sure that it doesn't happen again. And so I want to encourage all my colleagues to support this important resolution. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, April 6, 2010, marks the date that our farm subsidies--these are programs that, on a good day, are out of step with reality--took an unprecedented leap into the absurd. On that day the administration hatched an agreement on Brazil trade litigation that includes the U.S. paying Brazil $143.7 million a year for ``technical assistance and capacity building.'' Because our subsidies violate WTO rules, we're now paying millions to subsidize Brazilian agriculture. Let's think about that for a minute. Our subsidies for U.S. farmers are out of step with the WTO. So what do we do in response? We subsidize our trade partners elsewhere in the world. So your tax dollars are not only going to pay subsidies for U.S. agriculture, but now to pay subsidies for our trade partners in other countries. We have got to stop this, Mr. Speaker. It's Congress' responsibility to reform our cotton program and our agriculture subsidies.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentlelady has no additional speakers, I'm prepared to close. Madam Speaker, it's important for us to take a moment to extend our gratitude to our loved ones who have endured the grief of losing loved ones, those brave soldiers in the battlefield who become wounded or sick. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for his comments. We're all grateful for the Silver Star Families of America, for their devotion, dedication to keeping us all aware of the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of the armed services. I ask all Members to support this resolution supporting Silver Star Service Banner Day. I rise today in support of House Resolution 855, expressing support for the designation of May 1st as `Silver Star Service Banner Day'. Recognizing all of our service members throughout the year is our privilege and designating May 1, 2010 as Silver Star Service Banner Day is an additional way to honor the wounded and ill members of our Armed Forces. The Silver Star Families of America, a non-profit organization, is dedicated to keeping the memories of these hero's sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all of us through the presence of a Silver Star displayed in a window or the Service Flag flying for all to see. It is important for us to take a moment to extend our gratitude to their loved ones who have endured the grief of losing a loved one or the difficulty of caring for these brave soldiers as the Silver Star Families do. Those who have been wounded or have died are members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard. They deserve our continued gratitude for all that they have given on our behalf. To this end, the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent their bravery. We are grateful to the Silver Star Families of America for their devotion and dedication to keeping all of us aware of the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces, therefore, I ask all members to join me in supporting May 1, 2010 as Silver Star Service Banner Day. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct initiated an investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign contributions in the Spring of 2009. Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven separate matters involving the alleged connection between earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics to the Standards Committee. Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made public its report on the matter wherein the Committee found, though a widespread perception exists among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that Members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the matters forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics, neither the evidence cited in the OCE's findings nor the evidence in the record before the Standards Committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to March of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics noted that in some instances documents were redacted or specific information was not provided and that, in at least one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was being withheld. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that they were able to interview only six former employees of the PMA Group, with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and the OCE unable to obtain evidence within PMA's possession. Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews conducted by the committee, beyond a statement that the investigation `included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses.' '' (Roll Call, March 8, 2010) Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee included in their investigation any activities that occurred prior to 2008. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee interviewed any Members in the course of their investigation. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in the course of their investigation, initiated their own subpoenas or followed the Office of Congressional Ethics recommendations to issue subpoenas. Therefore be it: Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall report to the House of Representatives, with respect to the activities addressed in its report of February 26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were interviewed, (2) how many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation, and (3) what documents were reviewed and their availability for public review.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct initiated an investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign contributions in the Spring of 2009. Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven separate matters involving the alleged connection between earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics to the Standards Committee. Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made public its report on the matter wherein the Committee found, though a widespread perception exists among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that Members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the matters forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics, neither the evidence cited in the OCE's findings nor the evidence in the record before the Standards Committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to March of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics noted that in some instances documents were redacted or specific information was not provided and that, in at least one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was being withheld. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that they were able to interview only six former employees of the PMA Group, with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and the OCE unable to obtain evidence within PMA's possession. Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews conducted by the committee, beyond a statement that the investigation `included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses.' '' (Roll Call, March 8, 2010) Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee included in their investigation any activities that occurred prior to 2008. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee interviewed any Members in the course of their investigation. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in the course of their investigation, initiated their own subpoenas or followed the Office of Congressional Ethics recommendations to issue subpoenas. Therefore be it: Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall report to the House of Representatives, with respect to the activities addressed in its report of February 26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were interviewed, (2) how many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation, and (3) what documents were reviewed and their availability for public review.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed. The Clerk will report the resolution.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, a week ago I introduced a privileged resolution asking the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to report back to the House as to the extent of their investigation into the PMA scandal. A motion to refer that resolution to the committee was adopted unanimously. Every Member in this body voted for it a week ago; yet here we are a week later and we haven't heard anything from the Standards Committee as to the extent of their investigation. I'll be introducing this resolution again today, and I hope that we can finally get an answer as to the extent of the investigation into the PMA scandal.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House. The form of my resolution is as follows: Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct initiated an investigation into allegations related to earmarks and campaign contributions in the Spring of 2009. Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven separate matters involving the alleged connection between earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics to the Standards Committee. Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made public its report on the matter wherein the Committee found, though a widespread perception exists among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that Members or their staff considered contributions when requesting earmarks. Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the matters forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics, neither the evidence cited in the OCE's findings nor the evidence in the record before the Standards Committee provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of applicable standards of conduct occurred. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited from reviewing activities taking place prior to March of 2008 and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents. Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics noted that in some instances documents were redacted or specific information was not provided and that, in at least one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld information requested and did not identify what was being withheld. Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that they were able to interview only six former employees of the PMA Group, with many former employees refusing to consent to interviews and the OCE unable to obtain evidence within PMA's possession. Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence collected or any interviews conducted by the committee, beyond a statement that the investigation `included extensive document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses.' '' (Roll Call, March 8, 2010) Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee included in their investigation any activities that occurred prior to 2008. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee interviewed any Members in the course of their investigation. Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in the course of their investigation, initiated their own subpoenas or followed the Office of Congressional Ethics recommendations to issue subpoenas: Now therefore be it: Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption of this resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall report to the House of Representatives, with respect to the activities addressed in its report of February 26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were interviewed, (2) how many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course of their investigation, and (3) what documents were reviewed and their availability for public review.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, when the President signed the health care reform bill into law, he noted, ``The overheated rhetoric of reform will finally confront the reality of reform.'' He's right. Here is the reality: Insurance companies will now be required to accept children with preexisting conditions and carry adults up to the age of 26 on their parents' policies. New policies will have to cover preventative care without copays. Such requirements may or may not be in the public interest, but health insurance that is no longer a hedge against risk cannot accurately be called health insurance. Health insurance companies are now more like public utilities. Keep in mind that individual mandates requiring the purchase of insurance to broaden the pool will not kick in for 4 years. New competition is not required, nor is there any serious effort to deal with legal liability. In other words, there is no downward pressure on cost, only upward pressure. Madam Speaker, in this body we can pass all the laws that we want, but we cannot suspend the laws of economics, nor can we phase them in. Americans should now be prepared for higher premiums. That, Madam Speaker, is the reality of reform.