Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds if he wants to finish.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I think that is a valid point; although, I would argue that Members with military bases don't necessarily align with the 13 percent represented in this chart. But I would again, before asking unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment, make the case, we will be dealing with another appropriation bill tomorrow that is cleaner than this one in terms of being able to target earmarks and prohibit funding for them and actually save money. The way this bill is structured makes it difficult to do that, but I recognize it. I just wanted to make the point and to drive it home again, through the process of authorization, appropriation, and oversight, we can do a far better job.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, this amendment is straightforward. It would simply prevent the funding of all Member-requested earmarks in the bill. It would return the funds to the original accounts. I'm not here to dispute the merits of these projects. I have no doubt that some of those projects are worthwhile and would improve the quality of life for our military servicemembers and their families, but that's not what is at issue here. At issue, again, as I pointed out before, is the spoils system that this process of earmarking represents. This year's Military Construction-VA appropriations bill shows that the spoils system is alive and well. It's happened in previous years, and it's no different this year. The only difference here is we have basically just one party engaging in it, and so the spoils are even more concentrated in fewer Members. Let me just put this chart up here. These are the FY 2011 earmark dollars associated with powerful Members of Congress. By powerful Members I mean those who are on the Appropriations Committee, those who are in leadership, or those who are chairmen of committees. And if you look at the appropriations bills that have gone through either the subcommittee or full committee on appropriations, you see this appropriations spoils system in action here. This looks like a Pacman chart here with a hungry Pacman here. The red represents the percentage taken by powerful members. In the Homeland Security bill, 52 percent of the earmark dollars go to powerful Members. Fifty-two percent go to just 13 percent of this body; CJS bill, 57 percent; Agriculture, 76 percent; THUD, 42 percent; and MILCON VA, what we're doing now, 51 percent. More than half of the earmark dollars in this legislation are going to just 13 percent of the Members in this body. Madam Chair, that is simply not right. We shouldn't be doing this. Yet year after year we do it. No matter what kind of reforms we enact, we still have the spoils system alive and well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I plan to withdraw this amendment. I had planned to from the beginning. What I wanted to do was come down here and explain the spoils system that this kind of earmarking represents. The problem, the gentleman mentioned that this amendment is crafted in a way that it would prohibit the spending of money on these projects. It would. The problem is there is no way to craft an amendment that wouldn't do that. What we have here is a situation where we simply can't go in and say this is a good earmark and this is not, not through this process. That's part of the whole flawed aspect of what we are doing here and why we need to change this. But the gentleman is correct, we shouldn't give the administration a free ride to say this is where things ought to be spent. We have the power of the purse. This is article I stuff, and we ought to exercise it. The problem I have is we basically exercise authority over that much of it and leave the administration with this, instead of saying, through the process of authorization, appropriation, and oversight, we have more control of what the administration is doing. Instead, we say we don't like the way you are spending this money--we say that to the executive branch--so we are going to run a little parallel track in the Congress where we determine where this much goes. Then when we determine where this much goes, 51 percent of it goes to just 13 percent of this body.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order today not because of unfunded mandates in the bill, although, there are probably some, but because it is about the only opportunity we have here in the minority to protest the kind of treatment that these appropriation bills are getting in the Rules Committee and to protest the manner in which they are coming to the floor. It used to be that it was a time-honored tradition in this House to have appropriation bills come to the floor under an open rule. Over the past couple of years, that has turned into a structured rule, so many Members in this body, in the minority and the majority, have not had this opportunity. Let's take last year, for example. Every appropriation bill, all 12, came to the floor under structured rules. There were some Members on both sides of the aisle who offered multiple amendments throughout the year. That is the one chance they have to actually offer amendments on appropriation bills--the things that we are supposed to be doing here in Congress--and they weren't allowed to offer one. Many Members were denied the opportunity to offer any amendments. There were some 1,500 amendments offered last year. Just 12 percent, fewer than 200, were made in order. And, in fact, I offered about 635 myself. I was only permitted to offer 50, after the structured rule took effect. Now, the leadership on the majority side will often say, well, we have to keep order in this place, and people would simply offer dilatory amendments and take too long in the process. I remember times in years past, and I haven't been here that long, but just a couple of years ago where we would spend 2 or 3 or 4 days on one appropriation bill because that's what we do here. That's the important part of what we do. Yet, the majority can't seem to find time to allow all amendments to these bills. Instead of allowing debate on amendments to appropriation bills, let me give you some idea of what we've been doing over the past couple of months and why the statement that we simply can't allow people to offer this many amendments would be proper because we don't have time. Well, here's what we've had time for. And let me note that each one of these that I mention, and this is just a fraction of these kind of suspension bills that we've dealt with, each one of these allows for 10 minutes of debate. That's as much time as we allow on any amendment coming before on the appropriation bill. H.R. 1460, Recognizing the important role of pollinators. That one we dealt with just a month or so ago. H.R. 1491, Congratulating the University of South Carolina, the Gamecocks, for winning the 2010 NCAA Division I College World Series. H. Res. 1463, Supporting the goals and ideals of Railroad Retirement Day. Now, these things may be nice to do and nice to those who receive these kind of accolades, but it's not the important business of this House. And so to say that we don't have time to actually debate amendments to these appropriation bills, and the one that we are dealing with today, many amendments that were submitted by Members were turned away, were not allowed in this structured role. Another thing we dealt with, supporting the goals of National Dairy Month. Now, how in the world is that more important than allowing Members to strike funding from appropriation bills? I need not remind this Chamber that 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year, 42 cents of every dollar we spend this year will be borrowed from our kids, from our grandkids, from whomever overseas who buys our bonds. And yet we can't allow time to let Members offer amendments to strike spending from these bills. We only allow a certain percentage of them. Supporting the goals and ideals of American Craft Beer Week. That was H.R. 1297 that we dealt with in the last couple of months, the time that we usually designate in this body to deal with appropriation bills. Congratulating the Chicago Blackhawks. That was H.R. 1439. Supporting National Men's Health Week. Recognizing June 8, 2010, as World Ocean Day. As I mentioned, these might be good things to do, but when they're taking up time that the majority seems to say now we don't have time for appropriation bills, that's wrong. And when they, in the Rules Committee, will say, sorry, the gentleman from Colorado or wherever else can't offer his amendment because we've taken too much time recognizing National Nurses Week or supporting the goals and ideals of National Learn to Fly Day or expressing support for the goals and ideals of Children's Book Week, recognizing the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the East Bay Regional Park District in California, I think you're getting the picture here. It's a hollow statement to say that we don't have time to deal with these amendments on appropriation bills. The truth is the leadership simply doesn't want these things debated all that much. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, and I will explain why in a minute.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1559 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes the violation of section 426(a).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to the gentlelady. The gentlelady says that I am criticizing pollinators or beer distillers or whomever. I'm not. I'm just saying the Congress doesn't need to congratulate everybody who wins a championship or everybody who distills beer. I mean, it's just nutty for us to spend so much time on these things and then say, I'm sorry, we don't have time for Members to offer amendments on appropriation bills to actually strike spending so that we're not borrowing 43 cents on every dollar that we spend this year. Let me mention why it is that the leadership and the Appropriations Committee may not be so anxious for Members to debate these bills-- because there are a lot of earmarks in them. This chart shows 11 of the 12 appropriation bills that have gone through either the subcommittee or committee. It looks like a hungry Pacman here, but what this shows in the red is the percentage of earmark dollars associated with powerful Members of Congress. That includes members of the Appropriations Committee, members of leadership, or chairmen of committees. That represents about 13 percent of this body. Yet, when you look at the number of earmark dollars or percentage of earmark dollars, Homeland Security, that 13 percent is garnering 52 percent of the earmark dollars. CJS, 57 percent; Agriculture, 76 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this body, the 13 percent that are writing the rules here and are deciding that certain amendments simply won't be offered. That is wrong. We shouldn't be doing that. TTHUD, which we'll be doing just tomorrow, 42 percent of the earmark dollars are going to just 13 percent of this body. Is it any wonder that the leadership on the majority side does not want certain amendments debated here? MILCON VA, 51 percent going to just 13 percent of this body. Energy and Water, 53 percent; Labor/HHS, 66 percent; Interior, 60; Defense, 55. In Defense, we just learned today that an amendment has been submitted--I'm sorry, an earmark has been submitted, $10 million for the John Murtha Center, our beloved Member who deceased just a few months ago. We're going to earmark $10 million to create a center in his honor in the Defense bill. I think that that ought to be debated here, but chances are we won't even get to the Defense bill. It's unlikely we're going to get to very many of the appropriation bills this year, and the ones that we do will come to the floor under a structured rule where Members will not be allowed to offer amendments, or just a few of them on the ones that the majority chooses to hear. They can choose the ones they don't want to hear and choose the ones that they hear. I would like to hear a response from the Rules Committee as to what reasoning goes behind which amendments will be allowed under what is traditionally an open rule and which ones will not. And I would yield to the gentlelady if she would explain the rule or how the Rules Committee arrives at this rule. I guess the gentlelady doesn't want to respond on this. I wouldn't either. I wouldn't want to try to justify closed rules or structured rules coming to this body on appropriation bills when we're spending more time doing things like recognizing the 50th anniversary of Title VI international education programs, recognizing the importance of manufactured and modular housing in the United States. These are all goods things. It doesn't mean we should spend time that could otherwise be debating appropriation bills, which is what we do here. We prioritize by funding. That's what Congress does. We have the power of the purse. And yet we're shortchanging that process so that we can support the goals and ideals of Student Financial Aid Awareness Month and raise awareness of student financial aid. Like I said, not a bad thing, but not something that should supplanting what we should be doing here. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would just plead with the Rules Committee and, more importantly, the leadership on the majority side to realize that the traditions of this body, the institutional things that we have here, open rules on appropriations, should be honored. Now, I've come here for the past 10 years and offered a lot of amendments, many of which when we were in the majority. My own party didn't like these amendments, but they suffered through them because they knew that things matter here like tradition or upholding the institution. So they allowed all amendments, some of which targeted Members of our own party. But the majority in power now doesn't seem to want that. They want to shield their Members from difficult votes and also shield those who are getting these earmarks from any scrutiny. These amendments aren't really scrutinized in the Appropriations Committee. So if they aren't argued and debated here, they simply aren't going to get a vetting. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I thank the gentlelady for sponsoring this legislation. I rise in support of it. As was mentioned, I am a cosponsor. This would rescind contract authority for old transportation earmarks. I think we all recognize there are a lot of earmarks that go through this place that are never funded, and that's usually a good thing because often they are quite wasteful. This bill also shines a spotlight on wasteful transportation earmarks in a number of bills, and it rescinds more than $8 million in contract authority for SAFETEA-LU which we passed just a few years ago. Many of us will remember, SAFETEA-LU contained more than 6,000 earmarks, including the infamous earmark for the Bridge to Nowhere, but it also included bike paths, museums, hiking trails, visitor centers, streetscapes, and parking facilities worth more than $700 million alone. I would urge those who are looking to bolster their fiscal credentials by voting for this legislation to rescind contract authority for old earmarks to remember that in 2 days we'll be considering the T-HUD transportation bill, which contains about 500 new earmarks worth more than $300 million, and if we are going back and saying, yes, earmarks are wasteful, we ought to recognize that in the same week we're doing this we're also considering a new appropriation bill with about 500 earmarks worth about $300 million. I will be offering a series of amendments, and if I'm allowed I'll offer that, if the majority allows me to do it, to strike some of these earmarks, and I hope that the same people who vote for this legislation will also vote to strike certain wasteful earmarks from that legislation as well. We simply can't say all right we're for fiscal responsibility when we're rescinding old earmarks that haven't been spent or earmarked moneys and then a couple of days later approve a bill that has more than 500 earmarks worth about $300 million that will take effect now. So, anyway, I commend the gentlelady for bringing this to the floor. I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This is a good piece of legislation. Let's also remember when we're approving new earmarks we ought to have the same fiscal discipline.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a different kind of July than we usually experience here in Congress. Usually we're doing appropriation bills. We aren't doing them this month. We aren't likely to do any until after the election. Isn't that something? The one responsibility we have here in Congress, pass appropriation bills, we aren't doing until after the election. This might give you an idea why we're not doing that. These are the bills that have gone through the Appropriations Committee, either the subcommittee or the full committee. When you look at the number of earmark dollars that are associated with powerful Members of Congress, either those on the Appropriations Committee or leadership or the chairs of committees, just take, for example, the MilCon-VA bill, 78 percent of the earmarks are going to 13 percent of the Members. Other bills are similar: 76 percent in Agriculture; CJS, 57 percent going to the most powerful Members. It's often said that we earmark here because we know our districts better than those bureaucrats. Well, apparently, 13 percent of the Members know their districts; the rest of us don't. That's just one of the problems with the earmarking system we have in Congress. It's a spoils system. Those who are powerful get the spoils.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, just days ago the State of Arizona lost a kind and gentle sole when Mitch Menlove passed away at the tender age of 36. Mitch leaves behind a record of honor and integrity among those he worked with in a successful career in public affairs. He leaves behind a rich heritage of service in his church and his community. Most important by far, however, is the legacy Mitch built, a legacy that will continue for generations to come with his wife Elizabeth, his children Max, Morgan, and Makenna, and a fourth child, Mitchell Kent, Jr., who will be born any day now. Just hours before Mitch passed from this life, he climbed Arizona's highest peak. He stands even higher today. Those of us who are left momentarily behind will be forever grateful for the exemplary life he lived, the service he rendered, and for the wonderful family that will carry on his legacy.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment and should be noncontroversial. H.R. 5114 establishes a new grant program that would provide grants to local government agencies responsible for flood plain management in communities that participate in the national flood insurance program. Funds from this grant program would be used for outreach to inform both renters and owners of the national flood insurance program. This amendment would specifically prohibit any earmarking of the funds made available under this new grant program. Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's the taxpayers'--or, I don't think it is the taxpayers' responsibility to inform renters and owners of these flood plain requirements. Having said that, if we are going to provide funds here and say that it's a competitive grant program, then we shouldn't go in and earmark it later. Those funds ought to be available to those who compete for them, not directed by Members of Congress to favored constituents or groups. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment. Some have asked, Why do this if there's no intention to earmark the program? Why do we need this language? Unfortunately, in the past, with programs that have been adopted like this, competitive grant programs, we have said and promised in Congress that we won't earmark those funds, and we've come and earmarked them. A good example is FEMA's Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant Program that was put in place. It was not to be earmarked. It was a grant program like this one. Yet in 2007, nearly half of the funds for the program were earmarked. I just want to make sure that they aren't in this program as well. So I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment. I urge its adoption. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, recent press reports indicate that the House leadership is considering a rules change which would diminish the scope and authority of the Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE. This is an apparent response to the OCE's decision to forward information gathered during its investigation of the PMA Group to the Justice Department, bypassing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the process. The narrative seems to be that this is just another example of the OCE's succumbing to mission creep or of its growing beyond its intended purpose. In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the creation of the OCE in 2007. I felt at the time that the House should be able to establish appropriate standards and to police its behavior through the Standards Committee. I still believe that we should be able to do so, but this controversy over the OCE has effectively shown that, when it comes to removing the cloud that hangs over this body relating to earmarks and to campaign contributions, this body is unwilling, through the Standards Committee, to take the necessary action to uphold the dignity of the institution. After an investigation lasting more than a year, during which some 200,000 pages of documentation were accumulated, the OCE concluded ``there is evidence that some of the commercial entities seeking earmarks from Members of Congress believe that a political donation to the Member has an impact on the Member's decision to author an earmark for that donor.'' This information was forwarded to the Standards Committee, which agreed with the conclusion drawn by the OCE. The Standards Committee summarized the OCE's findings as follows: ``There is a widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provided enhanced access to Members or a greater chance of obtaining earmarks.'' Then, quite inexplicably, the Standards Committee dropped the matter, stating that to address the problem is ``not within the jurisdiction of the committee.'' Let me state that again. The Standards Committee said that it lacks the authority to establish a standard that will address what they conclude is a widespread perception of a link between earmarks and campaign contributions. This defies reason. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the House adopted rules requiring Members of Congress to certify that they have no ``financial interest'' in an earmark's being sponsored. ``Financial interest'' has been defined by the Standards Committee to include a direct or a foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interest for the Member or his or her spouse. The relevant section of the House Ethics Manual then states, ``Campaign contributions do not necessarily constitute financial interest.'' How can the Standards Committee lack the authority to set standards or to interpret rules? This is particularly confusing when one considers that the Standards Committee can address the issue by simply amending the interpretation of ``financial interest'' it has already promulgated in the House Ethics Manual. One need not read very far into the Standards Committee's summary of the OCE's PMA investigation before realizing that Members, through their campaign committees, derive significant benefit from the ``widespread perception'' of a link between earmarks and campaign contributions. To pretend that this benefit does not constitute ``financial interest'' is no longer a viable option. We are no longer acting in ignorance. The ``wink-wink-nod-nod'' game, which we have all known to exist with regard to earmarks and campaign contributions, is now well documented, and the Standards Committee's definition of ``financial interest'' needs to be updated to reflect these findings. So where do we go from here? We can shoot the messenger, as press reports indicate many Members are inclined to do, but the problem with this approach is that the message about the link between earmarks and campaign contributions has already been delivered. What we do with the OCE at this point is very much beside the point. It's little more than a sideshow. We need to concern ourselves with the dignity of the House. That is our collective responsibility. It does not fall outside of our jurisdiction. As I have said many times before, Mr. Speaker, the PMA cloud that hangs over this body rains on Democrats and Republicans alike. We are in this swamp together, but we can't grab a shovel while we are covering our eyes and plugging our ears.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in support of the amendment. We can learn from history but we really can't revise it as much as we want to try. We're hearing the same arguments now that we heard about Fannie and Freddie, that there's no trouble, they're solvent, everything's fine. We're hearing the same thing with FHA now, but I can tell you, when FHA insured simply, what was it one in fifty homes, now it's one in four, or guarantees the loan on that amount, we're going to face trouble here unless we make additional changes to the ones that are being proposed to this bill. This is a prudent amendment. It would raise from 3.5 to 5 percent the minimum down payment. It gives more individuals more skin in the game for their home and fewer individuals will walk away. They will try to work it out and try to make their mortgages go on. We cannot afford to ignore history, and if we reject this amendment, we are ignoring history.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor often on the rule and sometimes to thank the Rules Committee for allowing an effort to strike earmarks from legislation. This is the first time I've ever come to the floor on an authorization bill or an appropriation bill where I've been completely shut out of the process, not able to offer any amendments with regard to earmarks. And it's easy to see why right now. In the past, I've always come to strike both Republican and Democratic earmarks from legislation. This time there are some 230 earmarks in the bill and only one was a bipartisan earmark request. The rest were Democratic earmark requests, no Republicans because Republicans have adopted an earmark moratorium. So this looks like the start of a pattern. It was all well and good to challenge Republican and Democratic earmarks, but if there are only Democratic earmarks in a bill, then nobody is going to be allowed to challenge them. Now, what kind of process is that? Have we come to a point where we're simply going to shield Members and their earmarks from scrutiny? We talk about disclosure till we're blue in the face and transparency, and it's all a lofty term. But then when it comes down to it, when there's only one party earmarking in a bill, when a Member comes up to challenge those earmarks, he's shut out. No, you aren't allowed to. You can only challenge Republican earmarks, and since there are none there, or Republican and Democratic earmarks, if there are no Republican earmarks, you're not going to be allowed to challenge any. Now, I suppose that's what's going to happen with appropriation bills this year as well, and that's a shame. It's a doggone shame, because of all the rhetoric that's come, and some good measures that have been taken on both sides of the aisle with regard to transparency, this is a huge step backwards. We're going the wrong direction here.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all germane amendments be allowed to be offered, because the chairlady said that all germane amendments were approved.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, for agreeing to accept his amendment and for his support of this initiative, and for the ability of our economy to keep those who will help lead them into the future and help ensure that jobs stay here as to the extent possible. I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. I believe this amendment is noncontroversial in nature. It merely adds sense of Congress language to the bill expressing that, ``retaining graduate-level talent trained at American universities in STEM fields is critical to enhancing the competitiveness of American businesses.'' According to the National Science Foundation, foreign students receive about half of all doctorates in engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, physics, and economics that are awarded in the United States. Unfortunately, growing backlogs in processing applications hamper the flexibility of U.S. employers to hire foreign- born talent with advanced degrees from American universities. These hurdles affect even doctoral graduates in STEM fields trained at U.S. universities, who either return home or seek employment in a country with a more welcoming immigration system. The loss of Ph.D. talent, trained at U.S. institutions and due to immigration redtape, to our competitors makes little sense, and it harms our economy. Researchers at Duke University and the University of California- Berkeley found that from 1995 to 2005, more than a quarter of engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder, and in 2006, these companies employed 450,000 workers and produced $52 billion in sales. This amendment is supported by COMPETE America, American Council on International Personnel, and TechAmerica. I urge its adoption. This is important. We need to ensure that our economy is competitive moving forward, and we need to ensure that we have graduates in these STEM fields who can be here and lead these research efforts. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

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.