Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

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

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

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 plan to ask for unanimous consent to modify my amendment to reflect some of the amendments throughout this process that were not made in order by the Rules Committee. What I want to know is, is it in order, if the other side agrees with the unanimous consent request, and is it possible for them to do so and allow these other amendments to be offered?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. The argument we're hearing is akin to saying--you know this whole college bowl system that we have, the BCS? That's good. But we think the University of Maryland or Arizona State University or BYU or another organization, we think they're better. So we're just going to award them the national championship. They shouldn't even have to compete in the BCS or anywhere else because we think they're better. And because we can, we're going to do that. That's one of the problems with the contemporary practice of earmarking. And for that, I hope that we will object this amendment and at some point say that we can't continue to spend money in this way. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. It shouldn't surprise anybody that several of these companies in this area were clients of the PMA Group, a now defunct lobbying firm that specialized in obtaining defense earmarks for its clients. Since PMA was raided by the FBI and closed its doors, multiple press reports have noted questions related to campaign contributions made on or behalf of the firm, including questions related to straw man contributions, reimbursement of employees for political giving, pressure on clients to give, suspicious pattern of giving, and the timing of donations related to legislative activity. So here we are, yet again, with another defense-related earmark for an area that has received billions in defense spending that has previously been associated with contractors that have run into trouble, and a lobbying group that has cast a long shadow over this House. I urge my colleagues, if we're going to step up at any time, and say, enough is enough, let's step up here. For an earmark for $125,000 to going to help in defense procurement for an area that receives billions and billions of dollars in defense procurement. When is enough enough, Mr. Chairman? I ask for support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman who spoke earlier mentioned that this was in the top 10 of something. I know that Montgomery County beat out eight competing counties to house the Maryland Clean Energy Center, which is the State's first clearinghouse to drive clean energy and technologies. So we have an organization here, a county that is beating out competition. That's a good thing. But we're telling them, because you're beating out that competition, we're going to give you an earmark so you won't have to compete anymore. I mentioned that there are literally thousands of county Departments of Economic Development around the country who would like a shot at these funds, I'm quite sure. But when they apply for these funds at the SBA, they're probably being told, Sorry. That account is oversubscribed. There are too many earmarks in it so you won't be able to compete because a particular powerful Member of Congress simply siphoned off the funding so that an organization or institution in his or her district could receive those funds without competing for them. Just remember, what earmarks really are are no-bid contracts. It's basically an acknowledgement that you don't want the organization or institution in your district or elsewhere to compete for the funding, so you are going to ensure that they get it. And when you look at a chart like this, it's particularly pernicious when 60 percent of the share of earmarks are associated with appropriators, leadership, committee Chairs or ranking minority members, who comprise just 24 percent of this body, and 70 percent of the dollar value is associated with that group. And so you have a spoils system that decides where this money goes. Remember, Congress has the power to appropriate; and what we should do is first authorize, then appropriate and then conduct proper oversight but not circumvent that process by saying, We're just going to run a parallel program over here in Congress and earmark the dollars. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

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.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, yes, this isn't about unfunded mandates. Unfortunately, it's about the only opportunity we have to stand up, and we'll stand up later when the rule is discussed, but I'm here because the Rules Committee would not make in order the amendments that Members wanted to offer on an appropriations bill. These are bills that are brought to the floor under open rules, traditionally, to allow Members the opportunity to represent their constituencies; but here we're being gagged and told we can't do that because we're only going to allow the amendments that we want to hear, the ones that are noncontroversial, the ones that we have debated before and that we know won't impact negatively on us. That's not any way to run this body. I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I rise today once again to plead with the majority party to lift the legislative version of martial law that's been imposed on appropriation bills this year. We're more than halfway through the season and so far we've had, for appropriation bills, more than 700 amendments have been filed with the Rules Committee. Only 119, or less than 20 percent, have been made in order. Roughly a quarter of them that have been made in order have been my earmark amendments, which I'm pleased for. Don't get me wrong. I'm grateful they're made in order. But these earmarks, this is about the only vetting, as shallow is it may be, on the floor of the House that these earmarks get, because they're certainly not getting the vetting they deserve in the Appropriations Committee. But this is insufficient. It's not right to have a legislative version of martial law on appropriation bills and to bring up the issue of timing, to say, We don't have time to deal with all the amendments that have been offered, as was demonstrated yesterday when I asked unanimous consent five times--five times--to simply swap out an amendment that was not ruled in order by the Rules Committee--that was germane, just not ruled in order--for one of mine that would have been given. It wouldn't have taken any extra time. We would have been under the same time constraints of the bill. So we would be living within the time constraints that the majority party has laid down. But the majority party simply wouldn't allow it, because this isn't about time. We adjourned or we were finished with legislative business by around four o'clock yesterday. We were finished with amendments by five o'clock. Members were free to go after the last amendment votes around four o'clock. This isn't an issue of time. But say that it was. If it was an issue of time, then allowing amendments to be swapped and substituted or amendments to be modified within the time limit should be allowed. But instead, the majority party simply doesn't want to deal with certain amendments. They don't want their members to vote on certain amendments. That's what is at issue here. As a result, the votes on amendments on these appropriation bills have all the excitement and anticipation of a Cuban election. You know the result. It's going to be lopsided or it's agreed to in advance. That may be efficient. The trains may run on time. But it isn't the legislative process that we're used to here. Traditionally, appropriation bills have been brought to the floor under an open rule. That's always been important. It's become even more important over the last several years when we placed in those bills literally thousands and thousands and thousands of appropriation requests by individual Members, many of them no-bid contracts--Members awarding no-bid contracts to private companies and, in many cases, their campaign contributors, with virtually no vetting in the Appropriations Committee. So the only opportunity we have to vet those is here on the House floor, and then Members are denied the opportunity in many cases to bring those amendments to the floor. That simply is not right. Let me take the bill that we will be dealing with today and give a few examples. In the Rules Committee under this rule that we're dealing with now, many amendments were offered, as I mentioned, and they were submitted as requested by the Rules Committee, pre-submitted, which we didn't even used to have to do with appropriation bills, but we can accept that. These were submitted--and many of these were turned down. For example, one was to make in order to provide the appropriate waivers for amendment 87 offered by Representative Boehner, the minority leader, which would ensure that low-income D.C. students are able to receive a scholarship through the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program by removing the requirement that students must be OSP recipients during the 2009-2010 school year. This would simply allow the D.C. voucher program--the highly popular D.C. voucher program--to continue. This is not something that is not germane. It is germane. This is the bill that deals with D.C. appropriations. But the majority party simply didn't want to vote on that. And so they rejected it, and it's out. Later today, I will be asking for unanimous consent to substitute this amendment for one of mine that I have been fortunate enough to have made in order. It won't take any additional time. So time is not an issue. It's simply saying that we should be able to vote on amendments that Members want to vote on, not just those amendments that the majority leadership wants us to vote on; to lift martial law on appropriation bills, if only for a brief window, for the appropriation bills that we have still to consider. Another amendment--I see Mr. Walden here--that he has offered. The Walden-Pence amendment would prohibit funds from being available in the act from being used to implement the fairness doctrine and certain broadcast localism regulations. I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Oregon to speak on that.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against consideration of the rule 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 a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. The gentleman is correct. This goes to the Boston Architectural College. The Sustainable Design Program is an online program. It allows students from all over the country to enroll in classes and complete a certificate without even stepping onto the campus. Who then will be carrying out the project? I just wonder how the residents of Chicago, for example, whose alleyways have to outnumber just about every city in the world, feel about this earmark. In 2006, Chicago created its own Green Alley Initiative, one of the most ambitious public street makeover plans in the U.S. However, instead of relying on Federal funds, Chicago used its own resources and relied on the Chicago Department of Transportation to implement the program. If the Boston Architectural College is trying to be an example in urban sustainability, maybe they should be, and we all should be, looking to Chicago for that. Not only has Chicago implemented several green initiatives on a much wider scale, but it does not appear to rely on an earmark to do it. We simply can't afford to continue to earmark dollars for this program or others when we're running a deficit that could approach $2 trillion this year. I don't know how many times we have to say it or how many times we have to be voted down on the floor on these before we recognize we have to change things here. We are on a path, fiscally, that is unsustainable. And when we continue to have bills like this that earmark hundreds of millions of dollars not on a competitive basis--remember, earmarks aren't competitive. Earmarks mean that you forego the competitive process. You circumvent it. You tell those that are competing for moneys like this, You will have to take a backseat because we're going to take that money that you could have competed for and we are going to give it to somebody else. So perhaps this program is worthy of Federal money. Perhaps it isn't. It should have to compete for it. If we don't like the way the Federal agencies have set up the programs for competition, we should change them. We should instruct them to change it. That's part of the process of authorizing, appropriating, and then exercising appropriate oversight. But instead, here we're saying we don't like the way you do it over there so we're going to create a parallel system and we are going to do it ourselves, and that's simply not right. It's done. It amounts to a spoils system, as I mentioned here in Congress, where few powerful Members tend to get the bulk of the dollars and amounts to something, in the Defense bill, where you are giving a no-bid contract to private companies. And that's simply not right. We tell the Federal agencies you have to set up a program for competition, but then we do something else, and it's not right, Mr. Chairman. And I would urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $1.6 million from funding the Boston Architectural College Urban Sustainability Project. I appreciate the fact that Boston Architectural College is interested in urban sustainability and green innovation. According to the college, they're hopeful that that project will serve as a model for densely built areas, such as Boston's Back Bay historic district. In fact, the Green Alley funding for this earmark would be constructed in one of Back Bay's public alleys. For those unfamiliar with Boston, Back Bay is a residential, retail, and commercial office district. It's considered to be one of Boston's most--in one of Boston's most high-rent neighborhoods. While the construction of the project may be carried out by the Boston Architectural College, it will benefit an apparently affluent neighborhood. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say again, here we have a private university. I'm sure that it's a great university. I'm sure this is a great program that it has, but we have private and public universities all over the country that are hurting badly and would like to receive funding like this and would like to be able to compete for funding like this under a program where they're on equal footing, where the money is not earmarked or cut off the top and just awarded to individual organizations or institutions. That's the problem with this process. It's one of the problems of this process. And so I would urge adoption of the resolution. And, again, let me just go back to the request for unanimous consent to modify the amendment. Again, going back to what the appropriations chairman said the other day to the majority leader or said with the majority leader, We did offer the minority leader the opportunity in the compressed number of amendments to select their own amendment, any amendments they wanted, but they did not want to be limited in number or time. Here we're saying we will be limited to number and time. We simply would like to select the amendments that we would like to offer, but we're being denied that opportunity. Five times. Five requests for unanimous consent. Five denials to simply offer the amendments that we would like to offer. I yield back the balance of my time.