Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speed with which this was brought to the floor. This is something the State Department and the administration has asked for. It will allow ratification of a Third Geneva Protocol and protect, as has been said, the Red Crescent as well as the Red Crystal. This is important, as has been explained, so that those wearing the emblem can be protected in dangerous situations and battlefields, and we can encourage other countries to do the same and offer the same recognition. Again, I thank those who have on a bipartisan basis supported this legislation. I will not repeat what this does. It has been aptly explained by the chairman and the ranking minority member. I just wish to thank those who have brought this to the floor for doing so and urge its adoption.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me time on this bill. I am not rising today to debate the merits of trying to prevent underage drinking. What I am here to do is challenge the Federal Government's role in authorizing what amounts, in this bill, to $40 million for two new grant programs, $24 million for a new research initiative, $4 million to establish a new Federal committee, and another $4 million for a public service announcement. This is a total of $72 million over 4 years. And here's the real kicker: There already exist Federal programs that do exactly what this suspension bill intends to do. My staff and I visited www.thecoolspot.gov this morning. The Cool Spot was created for young teens by the lead U.S. agency supporting research into the causes, prevention and treatment of alcohol programs. It is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, an agency that is estimated to receive over $430 million in fiscal year 2007 and to do exactly what this suspension bill intends to do. The acting director of this agency justified in House and Senate Appropriations Committee hearings a budget increase of over $2 million for fiscal year 2005 to 2006 by claiming the agency would expand its research into youth alcohol abuse. But if you think that there needs to be more money, you can visit www.alcoholfreechildren.org, another underage drinking program that receives Federal funding from the Federal Government. Or there's www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov, or www.alcoholpolicy.gov. Why are we spending $72 million on Federal research and grants to establish duplicative programs? And why are we doing this exactly 1 week after the voters told us that they were tired of wasteful spending? Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot afford to keep adding new authorizations, new Federal programs when we know that we are running deficits and we have a massive debt. Where does it end? Where do we say, you know, having seven or eight or a dozen programs that already do virtually the exact same thing are enough? Why are we simply adding another? We can't continue to do this. So I would rise in opposition to this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote against it.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman for yielding. I just think there ought to be somebody who stands and says that research like this is going on in the private sector, continually, as it should be. That is where it ought to be. I hope that we can reach more energy independence. But when we look at the situation that we have now with a massive deficit and a huge debt, I think it is too much to ask, particularly given the oil prices where they are and the fact that there are huge profits being made by oil companies who have plenty of room to actually fund a lot of this research on their own, and it is a little too much to ask taxpayers, in my view, to come in. And I have heard the price tag to be somewhere around $400 million. That would seem to me to be a bit steep. So I for one do not support the legislation. I know that it has overwhelming broad bipartisan support, and I am not hopeful that my views will prevail. But I just want to add that I think that this, for the taxpayers at this time, is not a wise move.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 4772. I am pleased to be an original cosponsor and want to commend Mr. Chabot and Mr. Sensenbrenner for shepherding this legislation through. In Arizona, between State, Federal and Indian reservation, private property extends to less than 20 percent in the State, and so we take private property very seriously there because we cannot afford to lose too much more of it. So, when we have had the recent Kelo decision and other decisions that have eroded private property rights over the past couple of years, we feel that we need to respond in this way, and if the Federal Government has provisions which erode those private property rights then somebody ought to have a remedy through the Federal courts. And that's what this legislation is about. I commend the sponsors for pushing it through, and I would encourage support for it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. We passed recently the earmark reform rule that applies simply to House rules. I had a concern that it might not apply to suspension bills, bills which are brought under suspension of the rules which would include suspending the earmark rule that we adopted. I find in the report specific language referring to the Great Lakes Maritime Research Institute and specific moneys that are allocated in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. That would seem to fit the definition of an earmark for the purposes of the rule that we passed, and the rule that we passed requires that a Member who requested that earmark identify their names with that earmark. I would ask the gentleman if that is the earmark you requested?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. My concern is that when we did the earmark reform rule we didn't specifically cover suspension bills, and we want to make sure that all avenues are covered, whether it is authorizing on suspension bills or whatever else we do. So I appreciate the gentleman's explaining this particular source of funding and how it is arrived at. The chairman of the Rules Committee said during the debate on that earmark rule, he said, ``By adopting this new rule, we as a body are not only making the commitment to live under its provision, but every Member must make a commitment to adhere to the spirit of this new rule. It is more than just adding a new rule. It is making a commitment to change the culture of the institution.'' And what I want to make sure is that under rules of suspension that we don't bring to the floor any earmarks that have not been identified according to the rule.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. We do not legislate by press release. Unfortunately, for those of us who are trying to bring some accountability or transparency, sometimes the only way we can find out who requested an earmark or specific funding is to go to press releases because the agency won't tell us and the committees won't tell us.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I also thank the leadership for their continued commitment to work and to ensure that suspension bills are covered under the new earmark rule.

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I am reading now from I believe it is a press release of December 2005. ``Congressman David Obey, D-Wisconsin, announced December 12 that the Great Lakes Maritime Institute, the joint effort of the University of Wisconsin-Superior and the University of Minnesota-Duluth, will receive $2 million in Federal funding.'' I believe that that is now the identified home of the Institute and, therefore, receiving money year after year would, I believe, be defined as an earmark for that purpose.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am not comfortable in this position, standing up to argue in favor of a Democrat motion to recommit. Just a year ago, I stood at that very podium and argued on behalf of the majority in favor of reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act and against the Democrat motion to recommit that was favored by many of my colleagues. But during that process, we had more than a dozen hearings, a long markup, a spirited debate on the floor under a rule that allowed for a series of amendments, including four of my own. We did not have that process this time. This was a closed rule that did not allow for a vote, a clean vote, on a bipartisan substitute except as a Democrat motion to recommit. I wish that this were not the case because, as I said, I try not to make a habit of voting for Democrat motions to recommit. But for those of us who believe we should exercise our congressional prerogative to regulate the President's authority to conduct surveillance, this is our only option. For those of us who believe that FISA should be the exclusive vehicle for conducting surveillance related to foreign intelligence, this is our only option. And for those of us who believe that we should give the administration all the tools they need to conduct surveillance but retain the ability to regulate and provide oversight for such surveillance, this is our only option. If the underlying bill is enacted into law, we will have two surveillance programs, one under FISA and on the books, and one outside of FISA and off the books. If we do this, we will not give due deference to our congressional responsibility. Make no mistake, if we vote for the underlying bill and against the motion to recommit, we will walk out of these doors a lot less relevant than when we walked in this morning. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote for the Democrat motion to recommit and against the underlying bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman from California and the opportunity to work with him on the substitute. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5825. In 1978, Congress passed a seminal piece of legislation called FISA. This act recognized that while the President has inherent authority to protect American citizens, Congress has clear authority to regulate that surveillance. There have been many technological changes over the past 28 years, and FISA has been amended many times to adapt to those changes. But, now, we here in Congress are confronted with the knowledge that the executive branch has chosen to conduct surveillance outside of the strictures of FISA. We must now choose whether to allow warrantless surveillance to continue or whether we should bring the terrorist surveillance program and any other programs that might be in operation under FISA's authority. If we do not, we will essentially have two categories of surveillance programs: one on the books and one that is off the books. Now, perhaps the existence of FISA has made us all complacent. We have not been confronted for the past three decades with reports of executive branch abuse. But prior to FISA's passage, such abuses were legion. The Church Commission of the mid-1970s identified instances of abuse of the executive branch surveillance power that were so egregious that they thought it necessary to bring in FISA. Do we want to return to the pre-FISA era? I would submit that we should not. Yet the bill we will vote on tonight will ensure that surveillance will continue to be gathered outside of FISA, effectively returning us to that era. As I have said before, the acid test for Republicans should be as follows: Would I more jealously guard the congressional prerogative to regulate the President's inherent authority to conduct warrantless surveillance if the current occupant of the White House did not share my party affiliation? If the answer is yes, then it is our obligation to vote against the underlying bill and to vote instead for the motion to recommit.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is a wonderful and storied institution. It is with great reverence and pride that each of us who is elected comes into this body. But with earmarking, we have departed from the practices and traditions of the People's House. When working properly, the House of Representatives follows the time- honored practice of authorization, appropriation and oversight. Earmarking short circuits this process. Today, we do far too little authorizing, far too much appropriating and far too little oversight. When I was first elected, I had visions of participating in the great debates of our time. It is not that these policy debates haven't occurred. They have and they do. But I believe it is safe to say that they are diminishing. In Congress, policies and priorities are established when money is attached to them. When the carefully designed process of authorization, appropriation and oversight is adhered to, these policies and priorities are given a thorough vetting. But when earmarks are inserted into bills at the last minute behind closed doors, there is no debate, deliberation or scrutiny. When appropriation bills reach the House floor, passage by a lopsided margin is virtually assured because Members with earmarks are obligated to vote for the entire bill. The scope of debate is substantially narrowed when even partisan disagreements that would otherwise occur are hushed as Republicans and Democrats find common cause in protecting their earmarks. I am under no illusion that this legislation, which deals only with the issue of transparency, will solve the problem of earmarking. Too many in this body have been convinced that they have both the right and the obligation to personally direct funding to their district. But this bill does represent an important first step. Mr. Speaker, we owe this institution more than we are giving it. Let's pass this bill and give it more of the respect it deserves.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, today I voted against the Pledge Protection Act--H.R. 2389. I believe in the constitutionality of the Pledge and believe that the Pledge should contain the words ``under God.'' Unfortunately, this bill does more to hurt the Pledge than help it. The bill strips Federal courts of jurisdiction over Federal constitutional claims, leaving the States to each decide issues regarding the Pledge. Some States may strike down the Pledge; others may modify it. The end result would be lasting damage to the Pledge. This is clearly a Federal, constitutional issue. I realize that, in 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached a disturbing result by declaring that it was an unconstitutional establishment of religion to have students to recite the words ``under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court overruled the ninth circuit on procedural grounds in 2004. Unfortunately, there was no clear opinion overruling the ninth circuit on substantive grounds. The ninth circuit's ruling has created confusion as to whether the decision must be followed within the boundaries of the circuit. At least one Federal district court in California has since ruled that it must. That case is on appeal now to the ninth circuit, and hopefully it will make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court for a reversal.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, last year's highway authorization bill, better known as SAFETEA-LU, which brought us the bridge to nowhere, seems to be a gift that keeps on giving. It has now cleared the path for a program that may set a standard for fiscal mismanagement and favoritism by the Federal Government. Thanks to changes made to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing, or RRIF, program in SAFETEA-LU, the administration is considering awarding one of the largest loans to a private company in the history of the United States. This would be a $2.5 billion loan to the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroads, or DM&E, a loan larger than the Chrysler bail-out. SAFETEA-LU expanded the loan authority of the RRIF program from $3.5 billion to $35 billion and removed any prohibition on the size of any single loan, paving the way for the DM&E loan application. If drastically expanding the program's loan authority opened the door for DM&E, a handful of other changes to the program all but drive the loan application home. Mr. Speaker, the RRIF program is on the verge of being used to provide a competitive advantage. It is inappropriate for the taxpayers to finance it.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I will do that. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In last year's conference report on the SSJC appropriations bill, there was a $250,000 earmark for the JARI, which stands for Johnstown Area Regional Industries, Workforce Development Program. There was a separate $250,000 earmark for the JARI Small Business Technology Center. This year, there is a $500,000 earmark for the JARI Workforce Development Program and the Small Business Technology Center. We also found a separate $800,000 earmark for JARI for a Regional Business Incubator. Aside from all other arguments that can be made against this kind of earmarking, I want to point out what appears to be a trend toward obfuscation in the language of earmarks. In drafting a limitation amendment to prevent funding to the JARI Regional Business Incubator, we used the earmark language exactly as it appears in the bill. We then asked the Parliamentarians to review it to make sure it would be in order. We were informed that the ``region business incubator'' verbiage was too vague to be considered in order. So in drafting this amendment, we had no choice but to limit funding to JARI, period. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit any funding from the bill going to the organization, whereas our initial intention was to limit the funding to the business incubator. That is part of the problem we have here. All we have is the language in a report that is so vague or confusing that it is even difficult to draft an amendment to cover it. Now I have no problem limiting any funding to the organization, let me tell you, but I also want to be clear that I have nothing against JARI. I wish the organization well in its efforts. I do, however, have a problem with the increasingly opaque process by which Congress hands out earmarks. For the first half of this year, we debated ways to bring transparency to what we do here. When it comes to the earmarking process, Members have proposed a longer notice period before consideration of bills, making bills and reports more accessible, attaching Members' names to earmarks, compiling earmarks in tables, including earmarks in the text of legislation, and on and on and on. I think all these ideas are fine, and I have introduced my own proposal. After a good deal of compromise, this House approved the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act last month. Yet here we are, just a few weeks later, and there has been no apparent effort to comply with the proposals that we made in the House and the entire House approved. How can we explain this to our constituents? Was the lobbying and transparency legislation just for show? I certainly don't think it was, but it is starting to look that way to most Americans. We need to demonstrate how serious we are about establishing transparency in Congress. We have made a strong effort, and there is nothing preventing us from making good on what we said. Waiting until this bill becomes law before we act would appear as though we are under compulsion to comply with the public demand for transparency. I think we need transparency now. A small handful of our colleagues contend that we should not change the process until the other Chamber changes its process, that if we enact unilateral reforms in the House, we would shortchange ourselves. Who is this about? Are we here to serve our country, the best interests of our country, or simply to look out for the interests of the House? What are we waiting for? We are almost done with the appropriation process for the year, yet nothing has changed. Where are the names next to earmarks? Where is the transparency that we say that we want? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we have done it again. We have come here to talk about an earmark that I am sure will be approved by voice vote and then probably by roll call, and we still don't even know who sponsored it. We don't know if the institute is the same as the initiative. We don't know why the organization claims on its own Web site to have a budget of $340,000, yet has received earmarks in each of the past 2 years for $400,000 each. It simply doesn't make sense. Are we exercising the proper oversight that we ought to? We said before, both sides have said, the gentleman and ranking minority member have said we simply don't have the staff to police the kind of earmarking we are doing here. I readily agree. Yet we are continuing to do this. I don't know where we stop. I simply don't. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the committee report for this bill contains an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Initiative, and my amendment would limit funding for this item. The committee report for last year's SSJC appropriations bill did not contain a similar earmark, but the conference report on this bill did include an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute for the same amount. Though it is impossible to know by reading the report, it appears that this earmark is destined for the same institution. Again, we simply don't know. We have insufficient information, yet we are going to provide the funding without even knowing, without anybody even asking the question, is it the same thing to give money to the initiative or the institute? It appears that this is one of several earmarks that have been funded in multiple years with similar but increasingly vague verbiage in the committee report. The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was founded in 1987 by Les Aspin, a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense. The institute says its purpose is to ``bridge the gap for Wisconsin companies interested in supplying their products and services to Federal, State and local agencies and prime contractors.'' The institute ``guides, trains and provides hands-on assistance to firms in developing government business and improving process and technical capabilities to access and compete in the government workplace.'' When I saw this earmark, it reminded me of the late-night commercials that you see from a fellow by the name of Matthew Lesko. He will stand up and run to the camera, and he has a suit with question marks all over it, and he has a car decorated the same way, and he will wave a book and say, ``There is millions and millions of government dollars just for you, and if you pay me $19.95, I will tell you how can get these contracts, how you can get this money, how you can get these scholarships, how you can get these grants, how you can get these loans.'' This seems to be a process similar to Matthew Lesko. You have an organization here whose job it is to secure projects from the Federal Government, and we are paying money to that organization to help them procure contracts from us. It just seems like a little double-dipping in that way. We are funding an organization whose purpose it is to help other organizations obtain Federal assistance, grants, contracts, et cetera. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the 2003 budget for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute was $340,000. This year's and last year's earmarks were for $400,000 each. It seems that we have doubled their budget, or their entire budget comes from the Federal Government. I am not sure which. I am sure the Wisconsin Procurement Institute's budget is higher now than it was 3 years ago, but a significant portion must be funded by this earmark. I certainly support the outsourcing of Federal functions that can be better performed by private companies, but there is something inherently wrong with funding an organization whose purpose it is to help others secure government funding. Just thinking about it makes your head spin. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.