Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. FLAKE. I can't say that I'm shocked by now. This is the fifth time, I guess, but be it noted it is the fifth time we have asked for unanimous consent to offer the amendments that we would like to offer on this side of the aisle. But, again, this request has been rejected, not because of time constraints. We are living within the time constraints. It is because the majority party seems to only want to entertain amendments that they know they can defeat. They don't want anything controversial on the floor, and so we are breaking with tradition that has held for decades and decades, if not a century in this House, that we have open appropriations bills. Instead, we have a sort of a martial law with appropriations bills where they come under a modified rule that only allows the amendment that the majority chooses to hear, not the ones that Members want to offer. That simply disenfranchises most of the Members of this body, I should say on both sides of the aisle. Many amendments that were bipartisan amendments or amendments offered by Democrats were rejected as well, because the leadership of this body and the majority party simply didn't want to hear those amendments. This amendment would prevent $300,000 in funding for the Wentworth University for STEM equipment and to reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. STEM in this case stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Wentworth University is a private residential liberal arts institution. The STEM equipment provided by this earmark would be located in Wentworth's University Center for Applied Health Sciences. Now I can't imagine that any university in the United States would not want Federal funding to increase student capacity at their institution. In fact, I doubt these universities would even be picky about the field to which the money was designated. But simply wanting Federal money does not equate or merit getting the money. You simply ought to have--to the extent that we provide Federal dollars for institutions of higher learning, they ought to be distributed on a competitive basis, not on a spoils system, not because one Member can designate here or there. We tell the agencies you have to set up a program by which people can compete for grants like this, but then we tell them, All right, but not for this pot of money. We're just going to designate it, and for the rest of the money in the account, then let people compete for that. But I'm going to get mine for my university, or she's going to get hers for her university, or they're going to get theirs for their university. That's simply not right. If we don't like the way the Federal agencies are distributing the money, then, by golly, we ought to change the way it is set up. And, by the way, they distribute that money, but we shouldn't run a parallel system where we say, We don't like the way you are distributing money so you simply will have to wait and watch while we distribute off the top. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 10 in part C.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I believe that is the Speaker of the House. Now, I mentioned before that the center contains a theater called the Cowell Theater. Last year the earmark sponsor went on a 12-city tour with her new book, ``Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters.'' I think that the Member who requested this earmark certainly knows her power. That is part of the problem with this earmark process. Again, let me point out, in this piece of legislation, the Energy and Water bill, 58 percent of the funding is going to just 24 percent of the body, people who know their power and know that they can get earmarks. And we hear a lot of high-minded rhetoric about earmarks, that we are doing it because we know our districts better than those bureaucrats, and these bureaucrats shouldn't be able to choose because I know my district better. But apparently just a quarter of the Members of this body seem to know their district better than everybody else because they keep getting all of the earmark dollars. So, when you strip it all away, we are earmarking dollars because we can here and sometimes to the same organizations or institutions that get it year after year after year. And when we are running a deficit that may hit $2 trillion, I would think that we ought to say enough is enough. The sponsor of this earmark appears to be associated with, either is a lone sponsor or in collaboration with other Members, more than $87 million worth of earmarks last year and more than $94 million the year before. So knowing your power certainly helps around here. At some point, this body has to stand up and say we can't continue to do this. We have to be stewards of the taxpayer money. And I would submit that when we are running a $2 trillion deficit this year, we may hit that coming up, then now is the time to say we can't continue to fund earmarks like this. I would ask for support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I would yield to the gentleman from Arizona if he would indicate whose earmark this is.

Mr. FLAKE. I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FLAKE. Let the record state, four times now, four times asking unanimous consent to simply swap for an amendment that we would like to offer rather than one that the majority party would like to hear. But again, it has been rejected. So I will go on. This amendment would prohibit $2 million for funding for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 earmark and reduce overall cost of the bill a commensurate amount. According to the sponsor, and I don't see the sponsor here today, the Fort Mason Center operates the retired U.S. Army West Coast Port of Embarkation as a ``national standard for historic preservation, urban planning, sustainable business practices, nonprofit support and incubation'' and on and on. According to a 2001 press release, this is not the first earmark for the Fort Mason Center by the same sponsor. That year, the sponsor directed a $13 million earmark to the center for seismic upgrades. According to the sponsor, this year's earmark was requested for costs associated with ``repairs related to sustainability and energy efficiency, as well as seismic safety and patron access.'' According to its Web site, the center ``embodies the essence of San Francisco, nearness to nature, combined with novel architecture, a nod to the past, and a dose of the different'' and boasts 300,000 square feet of space for 17 venues and on and on. This center hosts a lot of events annually. I suspect that more than a few of the attendees made their way also to the center's Cowell Theater last year, which is on the same premises, I believe. Now, I don't know why in the world we keep earmarking dollars for centers like this. They clearly are in areas, in this case, San Francisco, where there is other funding or other funding is already used. But in this case we have a particularly powerful individual who requested the earmark who is able to get it time and time again, and so we are seeing this earmark funded. At what point do we say we have to make priorities here? When you have a deficit that may hit $2 trillion this year, at what point do we say we can't spend another $2 million for the Fort Mason Center Pier 2 earmark? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 5 in part C.

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

Mr. FLAKE. We spend upwards, in cumulative subsidies, of about $420 billion at an average of $28 billion annually and climbing on ethanol. We keep hearing year after year after year, we just need to seed corn here, if you will, we just need it to prime the pump, and it will take care of itself later. And 30 years later, we are still subsidizing at about $28 billion annually. And then we have to mandate use for it. The truth is, we all know you can turn ethanol out of an old boot if you expend enough energy doing it. At some point, you have to question are we doing the right thing here with our dollars. When we are already spending $28 billion annually, does it make sense to throw in another $500,000 to Arkansas State University? Are they going to discover something that $28 billion annually for about 30 years has not discovered? At some point, we have to say we have a $2 trillion deficit and we have priorities here. So, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest we have to start somewhere. Please, with this program, let's save some money. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. May I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. FLAKE. You know, I thought the third time might be the charm, but apparently not. Let me just make the case again. The reason that we have martial law this year on appropriations bills is because we were told we needed to stay within the time structure. Now that excuse, I have to say, Mr. Chairman, was a bit suspect to start with. We are finished with voting today. We finished I think just before 4 o'clock. We'll be finished with these amendments and be out of here by 5 p.m. That's 2 o'clock on the west coast. Done for the night. And we don't have time to make in order a few other amendments? But here if that were the case, okay. We're accepting the time constraints. We accept that the majority party believes we should be done at 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock today. So we'll just say, Let's just substitute one of the amendments that we would like to offer for one of the ones that we had made in order under the rule. Yet the majority party says, No, we only want to vote on the amendments that we want to vote on, not the ones you want to offer. So let's get rid of, once and for all, the excuse that this is a matter of time, that the minority party simply won't agree to live within the time strictures. That is simply untrue. We are agreeing here to live within the time constraints, unreasonable though they may be, from the majority party as long as we can offer the amendments that we would like to offer, but we're not being allowed that. We've asked for three unanimous consent requests, each have been objected to. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike $500,000 in funding for ethanol from agriculture at Arkansas State University, and it would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. Mr. Chairman, again, we see what we know is probably best referred to as a spoils system. One appropriator approached me the other day and said, ``I wish you wouldn't use that term. It's pejorative.'' I don't know if there's a less pejorative term that can be used. But here's the case: So far the earmark dollars that have flown out with the appropriations bills thus far, powerful Members of Congress--these are the appropriators and those who are chairmen or ranking minority members--they represent about 24 percent of this body. Yet when you look at the earmark dollars in CJS, 58 percent went to just 24 percent of the body; Homeland Security, 68 percent; Interior, 64 percent; Agriculture, 67 percent; MILCON-VA, 52 percent; Energy and Water--this bill that we're discussing today--58 percent of the earmark dollars go to just 24 percent of this body. It's a spoils system. I don't know of any less pejorative term to use. To the victors go the spoils, I guess. But that's another problem with earmarking. It's not just that dollars are wasted or that dollars in defense bills are basically given out as no-bid contracts. It's that just a small number of people in this body control too many of the dollars, and we're told that we shouldn't let some faceless bureaucrat over in some agency decide where to spend the money because it's our role under the Constitution here in Congress. But if you accept that, you have to accept the fact that every Member of Congress knows their district better than some faceless bureaucrat, as it's always said. But if that's the case, why do appropriators and other Members in leadership know their districts so much better than everybody else around here? So it seems to be a bit of a spoils system, Mr. Chairman. I have to say, on this earmark with ethanol, we're spending a lot of money on ethanol. When you take the farm bill into account, when you take just about everything else we are doing into account with the energy bills that have been passed, it's not as if we are starving this beast. There is a lot of money going in here. Again, we're sending $500,000 more when we have a deficit nearing $2 trillion. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 4, part C.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. One of the 11 sponsors of this earmark describe this organization to receive it as a ``nonprofit organization.'' A quick glance at its membership roster shows that in addition to 45 well-endowed university members, 46 for-profit corporations also partner in this consortium. Among them are Procter & Gamble and MeadWestvaco. There is a lot of private money for this institution as well. Here again we have a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, and yet we're spending $3 million on an earmark for a Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research that already receives funding from a lot of private sector organizations, and we're simply adding on with another earmark. Again, it's the case here that when you earmark dollars, in this case you are removing dollars from the account that universities and other organizations can compete for. Over at the Federal agencies, we have a mandate that they compete out these kinds of projects. People compete on the basis of merit, yet here when we skim money off the top and earmark it for certain organizations, there is less money for other colleges, organizations and universities to compete for; and that's simply not right. As we've said over and over again, it amounts to quite a spoils system because just a relatively few people in the House get the bulk of the dollars that actually go toward earmarks. So, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for a favorable vote on this amendment. We simply need to save money where we can when we're running nearly a $2 trillion deficit by the time we get to the end of the fiscal year. When I came to Congress just 8 years ago, I think our total Federal budget was just north of $2 trillion. Our deficit this year will reach nearly that amount. And still we're earmarking dollars right and left to universities or other organizations that have big endowments already or have private sector partners who already contribute money, and still we're saying they need more. Where does it end? When do we say enough is enough? I would submit that we should say it right here on this earmark, and I urge support for the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the time remaining?

Mr. FLAKE. I want to make the point again here. I offered a unanimous consent request to stick within the time frames that we've been given by the majority party. The majority party said to us, Mr. Obey, said, We have an obligation to get our work done, so what Mr. Hoyer and I did was to offer the minority leader the opportunity, from a compressed number of amendments, to select their own amendments, any amendments they wanted, but they don't want to be limited by number of time. I don't fault them for that. I'm simply stating the facts. Well, here we are with the facts. We're willing to be limited by time. We have the constraints. All we want to do is have the ability to offer our own amendments, and we're not being given that ability. The majority party has objected to a unanimous consent request, not to offer an amendment that is not germane or that would not be made in order. It's just an amendment that they don't want to vote on. So this is the second time. It will probably happen again and again and again. I don't fault the gentleman from Arizona. He is carrying out the wishes of the leadership. I want people to recognize what is happening here. We have what amounts to martial law on appropriations bills this year for no reason other than the majority party wants to select the amendments that they want to vote on, not because of time constraints. We are living within the time constraints. We are okay with the time constraints. We are simply being objected to here, and are not allowed to offer the amendments that we want to offer. With regard to this amendment, this amendment would remove $3 million for the Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research and would reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Before proceeding with my amendment, Mr. Chairman, and so I won't gobble up my time, I would move that the Committee rise so that the whole House may entertain the unanimous consent request to modify my amendment.

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