Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form I have at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. I'd like to engage on my time a colloquy with the gentleman, the chair of the relevant subcommittee, if I could. I'm just wondering why the majority doesn't want to consider these amendments that weren't made in order.

Mr. FLAKE. I urge support of the amendment.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 9.

Mr. FLAKE. That didn't sound like the Clerk, so I guess we've been objected to again. Again what I am trying to do here is modify my amendment to reflect one of the amendments that was rejected by the Rules Committee. This particular amendment would keep in place the restrictions that have been in place for a long, long time against using taxpayer money to fund abortion services. The sponsors of this amendment, on both sides of the aisle, felt so strongly about it that many of them on the other side of the aisle voted against the rule. So when time expired just about an hour or so ago to vote on the rule for this bill, it was about 10 votes short of passing because more than 30 Democrats voted against the rule. Now the vote was held open for an inordinate amount of time so that leadership could twist some arms and change some votes to get this rule to pass. You had Members on both sides of the aisle feel that strongly about bringing an amendment to the floor, but the majority party leadership decided, no, that we should be muzzled, not just on this side but Members on that side of the aisle as well. Mr. Chairman, that's just not right, but that's what happens when you declare martial law on appropriations bills and say to the world, We can't do it because time does not allow. And then when somebody here asks for unanimous consent to simply substitute time for time, one amendment that wasn't allowed in order for one amendment that was, the majority stands up and says, I object. So let's get rid of the fiction once and for all that this is an issue of time. What it's an issue of, the majority leadership does not want Members to have the ability to offer the amendments they would like to. We had the gentleman stand up in the last hour who presided a couple of years ago over the Interior appropriation bill. He noted that he sat in the Chair for over 3 days to listen to amendments come up on the Interior appropriation bill. I remember that time. I offered many of those amendments. There were many amendments that people on both sides of the aisle offered that the leadership on both sides of the aisle was uncomfortable with. But they allowed it to occur, because that's the way it should work here. Under this martial law rule, we have a structured rule and the majority leadership picks which amendments can be offered and which ones cannot. That is simply not right, Mr. Chairman. Now in terms of this amendment, this amendment would prohibit $200,000 from funding the Arkansas Commercial Driving Training Institute, and it would lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The recipient of this earmark is Arkansas State University. It's had a truck driving institute for more than 20 years. I am all for driver safety, particularly big 18-wheelers that are on the road, but I'm not sure why the Federal Government is funding this particular driving program. Nor do I understand why this institute is receiving another earmark, having received nearly a quarter of a million dollars in earmark funds in the omnibus bill that we passed just a few short months ago. In fact, it appears that this institute was established and built in part with taxpayer dollars, Federal taxpayer dollars, thanks to a nearly $350,000 earmark it received in the fiscal 2008 transportation spending bill. A quick search on the Internet shows there are dozens and dozens and dozens of commercial driving training schools all over the country. None of them have received this kind of Federal largesse. Why do we continue to fund institutes like this? Aren't some of the others just as deserving? Or is it just because we have Members in a position to do it? If you look at this chart, you'll get the answer there. This is the Financial Services bill that we're dealing with now. Sixty percent of the earmarks in this bill are going to just 24 percent of the body. That represents appropriators, chairmen, ranking minority members, so- called powerful Members. Sixty percent. If you look at the dollar value of the earmark, that goes up to 70 percent. Seventy percent of the earmark dollars in this bill are going to less than 24 percent of the body. Now you'll hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric about we can't let those faceless bureaucrats in the bureaucracy decide where the money goes. Well, most of the Members in this body would do better with faceless bureaucrats than with the Appropriations Committee, because time and time again, and this is a trend that we've seen throughout the appropriation bills this year, a small number of Members get a big chunk of the cash. And this is going to some organizations that have gotten earmarks year after year after year after year. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I thank him for that clarification. Mr. Chairman, no Member of Congress will ever say that, in his district, there is full employment and that there is no need for outside assistance. This particular entity isn't just receiving this earmark. It received an earmark for nearly $250,000 in the FY09 omnibus bill that we passed just a few months ago. So we have last year's bill, this year's bill and likely next year's bill. There are organizations all over the country that would like, one, to compete for SBA funds on merit rather than on earmark, and there are private-sector organizations that would like to provide this assistance, but they're competing with government entities that are providing some of the same services, a lot of these services that are indicated here--strengthening entrepreneurs, group-based learning, peer support, access to various business services. These are services provided by the private sector all over the place as well, but these private-sector organizations now have to compete with government organizations to survive. In some cases, it is no wonder there aren't private-sector organizations. They're crowded out by their government counterparts. So, rather than continuing to fund entities that have received earmarks year after year and that have no real prospect of not being reliant on Federal Government funding in the future, we've got to say enough is enough. We can't continue to spend money this way when we're running a deficit that might approach $2 trillion this year. With that, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. What I wanted to establish is that by unanimous consent the majority party could agree for me to modify my amendment. Now, I was allowed for 11 amendments under this rule to strike earmarks from the bill. Unfortunately, numerous Members, dozens of Members, were denied the ability to offer any amendments on this bill. It seems the majority party only wants to deal with those amendments that they know they could win. Now, under tradition, this House has brought appropriations bills of the House to the floor under an open rule. We've broken with tradition this year. There is a headline on AP wire right now that says, ``House Democrats muzzle GOP on sensitive issues.'' That's a pretty accurate headline. That's exactly what's happening here. Now, we were told that it was a time constraint issue, that we simply couldn't finish all of the appropriations bills under a certain amount of time so we had to restrict the number of amendments. That's what the world was told here, the country was told. We find out that's not the case at all. We have a time limit under this bill. I have 11 amendments. I'm willing to modify my amendments to reflect some of those that were denied, amendments that were germane. The first one that I have at the desk is one that would protect broadcaster freedom. This is an amendment that was offered last year in the appropriation bill. It was germane, and it received 309 votes from this Chamber, but the majority leadership doesn't want to vote on that, and so they've denied the authors of that amendment the ability to come to the floor and offer it. And so I'm willing to substitute that for one of mine under unanimous consent, but the gentleman objected twice, so we won't be able to do that. So I just want to say it on the record--and I will say it again and again--this process is not right. We know this isn't the way it should be done. House Democrats are muzzling the GOP on sensitive issues, just like the headlines now read. It's not an issue of time. We're under time constraints already. We're willing to simply substitute time for time, but the majority party simply will not allow it. Now to the merits of this amendment. I'm seeking to strike funding, $100,000 for funding a small business incubator at the University of West Georgia. This would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This is money that's going to a business incubator. You will see that theme throughout a lot of these amendments, whether they're at a university or under some other umbrella. We're taking money from the Treasury here, money that we have to borrow, and funding business incubators. Now a business incubator, that's a bit of a nebulous term and I haven't quite figured out what it is. It means different things in different places. But apparently here it's simply to offer counseling, resource information exchange, and distance-learning opportunities for entrepreneurs and small business ventures. That kind of thing is done all the time in every State, everywhere. But not everybody gets a Federal earmark to do that and it's not fair to do it here. People that get this kind of money should have to compete for it if that money is available at all. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, No. 17, my final amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair and I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I think I'm the most commended Member in this body who never wins an amendment. Nevertheless, I think when you look at what's being funded here, these are activities that go on all over the country, whether they're sponsored by universities, whether they're sponsored by business groups, chambers of commerce, other associations. And to single one out and say that the University of West Georgia is deserving of a Federal earmark for their project, for their business incubator simply doesn't make sense. We have a deficit this year that will approach $2 trillion by the time we finish the fiscal year. We are borrowing money from the taxpayers all over this country, or actually borrowing it from foreign countries, and we're asking the taxpayers and future generations of taxpayers to pay for it because we don't have the money to fund these programs. This bill increases spending in the Financial Services appropriations bill, I think, $1.6 billion or so increase over last year. Yet we're funding projects as if we have no problem at all, as if money grows on trees here. And it doesn't. At some point I think we have to step back and say, We can't continue to do business this way. At some point we have to say, We're going to strike an earmark, or we're going to save some money somewhere. I would suggest that now is the time. If we're not going to do it now, I don't know when we're going to do it. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified to the form I have at the desk.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. It's unfortunate that it's been objected to again. Again, this amendment that I would have substituted is one that had bipartisan support, many Democrats, many Republicans, that would simply keep in place the restrictions that have been in place for years with regard to taxpayer-funded abortion. This is one that the rule for this bill just narrowly passed after the vote was held open for longer than it was supposed to so that a few arms could be twisted to make the rule pass because so many Members wanted this amendment to be considered. But yet the leadership on the majority side has said, We don't want to have a debate on this. We don't want to have a vote on this. Now it doesn't matter which side you're on on this issue. I think everyone should agree that we should have a vote on it. This is the people's House. People should have the opportunity to vote on issues like this. It is not increasing the time for debate. It's simply substituting one amendment for another. It is unfortunate we won't be able to do that. This amendment would remove $100,000 in funding for the Florida Institute of Technology in Melbourne, Florida, to be used for, quote, activity-based total accountability. According to the earmark sponsor's Web site, he requested just short of $1 million to ``create a national government services standards program to provide guidelines for which the efficiency of government services can be compared.'' I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, for the 11th time, that my amendment be modified in the form at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. The inquiry is, under unanimous consent, can the majority party agree to modify my amendment?

Mr. FLAKE. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I do.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I don't blame the Member for not wanting to talk about this. And I really feel for members of the Rules Committee that are forced to carry out the bidding of the leadership, because this clearly, this clearly is a decision from the top, this year, to declare martial law on appropriation bills and not allow Members of Congress to bring amendments to the floor under an open rule that we have traditionally, and this has been the hallmark of this institution-- openness. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) mentioned that he'd been in the Chair in previous years where, for 3 days we debated amendments to the Interior bill. Many of those amendments were amendments that I offered, some of which were uncomfortable to people on that side and on this side, earmark amendments or others. Yet, we did it for 3 days. This party has said, the majority party now has said we can't take 3 days on that bill. Okay, then let's limit the time. So we agreed here; we have time limits already set for the Financial Services bill. I have 11 amendments that were made in order. I'll be asking unanimous consent later, when I offer my amendments, to swap a few of those amendments out to modify them to reflect the amendments that were offered by Members and were not allowed by the Rules Committee. So it's not going to be an issue of time. We've settled the issue of time. It will tell us whether or not the majority party simply wants to muscle, not just this side of the aisle, but certain of their Members as well. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) stood up to oppose the rule because the amendment with regard to Federal funding for abortion was not allowed. That is one amendment that I will try to modify instead of one of mine, or have mine modified to reflect that amendment. Again, it won't be an issue of time. The question will be, can or will--they can--will the majority allow that modification and allow that amendment to be offered. Under rules of unanimous consent, or under the rules of this body, under unanimous consent the majority party can agree to modify any amendment that is offered by a Member. And so it's not a question if they can. The question is if they will.

Mr. FLAKE. I have 3 minutes. I'd like to, if I can, on my time, engage the gentleman in a colloquy about the rule. I was told earlier that I was discussing an amendment, I'm sorry, a point of order on unfunded mandates so we couldn't really talk about the rule. But now we are talking about the rule, so I'd like to have some kind of window into the mind of the Rules Committee as to why certain amendments were allowed on an appropriation bill and certain amendments weren't. If I could engage the Member in a colloquy, I'd enjoy that.