Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. First, this is the last amendment tonight. I want to thank the Members for staying around this long. I know their time is more valuable than mine, and I appreciate your indulgence here on this important process, and I apologize for keeping people this long, particularly those who came to defend their projects. The Member mentioned that it's important that we think of the little guys here. The last time I checked, we have an $11 trillion debt. That amounts to about $36,000 per American, per person; for a family of four, obviously it's much bigger than that. It's time we start looking out for them. If we look at this bill itself, CJS, it's 12 percent bigger than it was last year. In the year that we're running record deficits every year, we're expanding this bill by 12 percent. I appreciate what the Member said about the last 8 years. We missed a historic opportunity as Republicans to actually rein in spending. We didn't do it, to our eternal shame, and that's part of the reason we're smack dab in the minority today. We put ourselves on a course toward a fiscal cliff. But now we're still headed toward that fiscal cliff. And with bills like this that cost 12 percent more than last year, we've stepped on the accelerator. Why are we doing that? And if we can't stop creating new institutes to study seafood or anything else, then where are we going to cut? Where is the fiscal responsibility that we keep hearing about that's being employed? I just can't see it here. And like I said, we're creating a new institute here, a new institute that will now be reliant, I'm sure--I will bet just about anything that we will be back next year with another earmark for that same seafood institute that we just created because we've just got to keep it going now. And that will just add more to the deficit. Remember, we have to spend more every year. I urge support of the amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would remove $325,000 in funding for the Institute for Seafood Studies at the Nicholls State University Department of Biological Sciences in Thibodaux, Louisiana, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. It's my understanding that this money would be used to fund the creation of an Institute for Seafood Studies with the purpose of increasing and coordinating research related to sustainable fisheries and the seafood industry. Mr. Chairman, it would seem that we're developing a trend in the House, funding seafood earmarks. It seems a little fishy to me. We keep coming up with--there are lobster things, there are shrimp things, there are a lot of seafood things here in the bill, and then we never seem to be offsetting this spending anywhere else. It's just another earmark for this or for that or for this or for that. Every year we approve earmarks for projects associated with lobsters, like I mentioned, crabs, mussels, oysters, whales, salmon, horseshoe crabs, trout, shrimp. The list goes on and on and on. And now we are going to approve an earmark that creates an institute, literally, to study seafood. It's not enough to fund all of these other things. Now we have to create an institute to study seafood. And I would venture a guess that we'll be back here next year with another earmark for that same program because now that we have an institute created by the Federal Government through an earmark, then who is going to sustain it but the Federal Government with another earmark and earmarks in perpetuity? This earmark is only one of a thousand earmarks in this bill. As I mentioned, this is another example of where we always hear that Members know their districts best, but when you look at the earmarks funded in this legislation, you see the same spoils system that we see elsewhere. Again, I have to ask, does an appropriator or does a member of the leadership or a ranking member or a chairman of the committee just happen to know his district that much better than a rank-and-file Member, that they should receive almost double in dollar amount and in number of the earmarks that are proffered by this institution? That sounds fishy to me as well. We often get high-minded about, you know, we have to stand up for the prerogatives of the House and that we keep our ability to earmark because we know better than those faceless bureaucrats. But why do only some of the Members here know better? And it always seems to me that it is the same Members again and again. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as amendment No. 84 in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot about investment here. And it seems that when we want to spend money that we don't have, we call it an investment and assume everybody is going to be okay with it. We've invested so much that we have a $2 trillion deficit now. We've got to stop investing, spending, whatever you want to call it, if we want to get out of this deficit; and this seems a perfect place to start. The Member mentioned that this is money well spent, that it's a great return on investment. I'll tell you what was a great return on investment. Over the past decade, the JASON Project has spent about $1 million lobbying the Federal Government, in most cases, I think, lobbying for earmarks like this. For that $1 million, they've invested in lobbying this body. They've received tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. That's a pretty good investment, if you ask me; but it's nothing that we ought to just be proud of taking part in. At some point we've got to say, hey, there are a lot of private organizations that are helping this organization. At some point they need to be weaned off of Federal dollars. I would submit that $4 million in an earmark this year, when we have a deficit of $2 trillion, is simply too much. If we're not going to stand up here on this, again, I have to ask, when are we going to stand up and start paring down this deficit? It's amazing that we just don't see a real commitment here in this body at this time to actually take control of Federal spending. It's unfortunate we're not seeing it on this earmark, from the sounds of it; but I'd like to urge support of it. Maybe now is the time that we'll stand up and say, Enough is enough. I urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a $4 million earmark for the JASON Project and lower the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. The JASON Project was founded in 1989. It's been around for 18 years. According to their Web site, the purpose of the organization is to design science curriculum for fifth- to eighth-grade classrooms. We all know that science is important for any child's education, and if local schools wish to supplement their science curriculum with the services provided by the JASON Project, I believe they certainly should have that choice. However, this earmark is going to the JASON Project organization, not to the schools who wish to purchase its products. This $4 million earmark is one of the largest in this year's CJS bill, and I remain unconvinced that JASON is so desperately in need of Federal funding. In 1995 JASON became a subsidiary of National Geographic, one of the world's largest nonprofit science and educational organizations. In addition to the funding it receives from National Geographic, JASON is also partners with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Motorola Foundation, Shell Oil Company, and Microsoft also provide funding for JASON. Why, with so many resources, does the JASON Project still receive earmarks year after year after year? This is just the latest year that we have challenged this earmark on the floor, and we're always told it's vital, we've got to have it. Next year, it's vital, we've got to have it. When does the $4 million a year stop? According to the JASON Project, support from all of these groups enables the organization to offer its educational resources online for free. However, all of JASON's curriculum materials must be purchased, costing schools $788 for a classroom pack and about $2,500 for a school pack. In 2007 the JASON Project was the recipient of a $2.2 million earmark. Last year JASON received $5.6 million from the Federal Government. The JASON Project has been so effective in securing money that its Web site offers tips for teachers in securing funds from local entities in order to buy JASON products. So here's what they offer: They offer tips to teachers to go out and secure funds from local entities in order to buy JASON products. If the JASON Project can't continue its operations without Federal funds after 18 years, I think you have to question its effectiveness. We have to stop funding projects like this year after year after year. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 91 in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again I would say if we're not going to cut spending here, where are we going to do it? If we can't say that we are not going to give a million dollar grant to a private university that just received a million dollar grant, or close to, from the Mellon Foundation for an almost identical purpose, a private university that has an endowment of $268 million while we have a public debt of about $11 trillion and a deficit this year of $2 trillion, if we can't decide that we are not going to give a million dollar earmark in this manner, where are we going to cut? When are we going to say enough is enough? We're spending too much. So I commend those who are looking for ways to save, but I have to remain a little skeptical if we can't do away with programs like this, with earmarks like this. With that, I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $1 million for the Environmental Science Initiative at Drew University, and it would lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I have nothing against environmental science. I think very highly of the gentleman who has sponsored this earmark, but I do have a problem with handing out these kinds of earmarks to private universities. Drew University is not only a private institution; it also has a reported endowment of more than $268 million. In addition, the university was recently awarded a grant of $950,000 by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, a grant that was for the establishment of the new Environmental Studies and Sustainability major at the school. This is according to the university's Web site. I applaud Drew University. It speaks highly of the university that it was able to secure a grant from a foundation like the Mellon Foundation. Yet it's curious, in light of this grant, that Drew University should receive a $1 million earmark for what the sponsor said is the development of new environmental studies courses for the construction and improvement of science laboratories. It sounds to me like this new course of study at Drew University not only got a $1 million grant from the foundation for the new major but that it is also getting a $1 million grant from the taxpayers as well. I'm sure the curriculum Drew offers is competitive and noteworthy, but so are the curricula of many universities across the country. Mr. Chairman, there has been increasing attention paid to earmarks for private companies. What do we do about earmarks to private universities that have demonstrated their ability to secure generous grants from prestigious foundations? Why do the Federal taxpayers have to provide funding as well? Drew University has the benefit of relationships with influential Members of Congress, obviously; but does that justify this kind of earmark? As I mentioned, there is a bit of a spoil system here. I mentioned the CJS spending bill overall. When you look at simply one program, again, like the COPS grant, it contains nearly $123 million in earmarked funds. Powerful Members of Congress, appropriators, leadership, and committee chairs and ranking members are taking home more than $55 million of that. That represents 45 percent of the total dollars earmarked. Yet I would remind my colleagues again that this subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this legislative body. I would submit that the taxpayers have already had an education. We've received an education in Congress' wasteful earmarking ways. We don't need to subsidize a private university in this manner. I urge support of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 85 in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of commendable education programs, and this is certainly one that is fulfilling its objective. We are facing a $2 trillion deficit this year alone, and I think it behooves us as Members of Congress to make some choices at some time. I think all of us would love to have money for every worthy project that's out there, but here is a project that is receiving a lot of money from the private sector. I listed off some of the sponsors. They've been able to get large grants from corporations, and that speaks well for this program. Yet it has been around for 9 years, and since 2002, it has received $1.6 million in earmarks from this body. At what point do we say, ``Enough is enough''? At what point do we say, ``Yes, it is time to wean this program off of Federal dollars''? If not now, when? When we hit a $3 trillion deficit? At what point do we say, ``We're spending too much''? We all know that we have to borrow any money that we spend on any of these programs because we're running a $2 trillion deficit. I would simply submit that we have got to make some cuts somewhere, and we don't seem to be willing to do it anywhere. So, with that, I would urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $500,000 funding for the Innovative Science Learning Center at ScienceSouth in Florence, South Carolina, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. According to its Web site, ScienceSouth is a nonprofit institution established in 2000 by educators and business leaders and seeks to advance scientific understanding and increase the competitiveness of future generations. ScienceSouth offers programming for schools and families, as well as summer camp sessions, and currently offers hands-on science workshops at its newly opened ScienceSouth pavilion. Additionally, ScienceSouth is planning to open a new permanent facility. It's unclear whether the Innovative Science Learning Center is connected to this. There's no mention of it in the ScienceSouth Web site, and my staff was unable to find any information on the center online. This project is likely connected to the growth of this institution. Perhaps we'll have clarification here. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the sponsor of the project that ScienceSouth appears to offer a valuable service to the community. I appreciate efforts to make learning fun for families. I applaud ScienceSouth's decision to expand. However, I have to question how essential it is that ScienceSouth receive Federal funding. According to the Web site, ScienceSouth counts DeLoitte and Touche, I guess, Honda, Wachovia, AT&T, Bank of America and many other as its sponsors. It's also received funding from the State legislature, and holds an annual gala to raise funds from private donors. Yet year after year, we see earmarks such as these approved by the House; and year after year, some of us try to come to the floor of this House and ask why. Why do we continue to fund these projects? We're often told that we're trying to wean them off Federal funding. Yet, that weaning never seems to be accomplished. This year I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that earmarks like this exist because we have a pretty powerful spoils system. It favors powerful Members of Congress over just about everyone else. With more than 1,000 earmarks in this bill, a full review and breakdown of earmarks was in tall order. However, you look at just a glance at one earmarked account in this bill, the COPS Law Enforcement and Technology account reveals that Members of the House leadership, appropriators, committee chairmen and ranking members are taking home more than 45 percent of the earmarked dollars in that account. I wish I could say this was the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, it's not. When you look at last year's Defense spending bill, for example, the same powerful Members took home 54 percent of the total earmarks contained in the bill. I'd remind my colleagues that this subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this body. Mr. Chairman, I often hear that Members know their districts better than those faceless bureaucrats. I would think it would be a tough case to make that only Members of the Appropriations Committee, or only Members who are in leadership positions on both sides of the aisle, they just happen to know their districts a lot better than anybody else, than the rank-and-file Members. Else, why should they get nearly half of the earmarks when they comprise less than a quarter of the body? I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 86 in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I'm often told we shouldn't be challenging Member earmarks. We shouldn't be challenging them because we ought to be going after those faceless bureaucrats and the things that the administration proposes that we don't look at enough. And I agree, certainly. So here's a case where the administration, not just the previous administration, but administrations before that have said this is duplicative. It's a center in search of a mission, and it ought to be shut down. You could save $44 million a year. And yet we won't do it. If we're not going to shut down a center like this, where are we going to cut? Let me just quote, according to the Department of Justice Budget and Performance Summary for Fiscal Year 2010: ``The most significant challenge for NDIC currently is its lack of a permanent funding source.'' Now, think of that for a minute. If that's the biggest challenge they've got, not, you know, finding a strategic mission or way to aid in our drug control effort, but is finding a permanent funding source. That seems to be their mission. And from what we know, that may be mission accomplished now, because the President is seeking to put it under DOJ where it will remain permanently. But we in Congress, it's our role, part of our oversight function is to ensure that money is not wasted by those, I'm always told, faceless bureaucrats. Here's a perfect example of where we can make a difference, where we can save money, and we ought to do it. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This is not the first time I have come to the floor to try to strike funding for the NDIC, but this is the first time I have tried to come and strike this earmark when it was requested by the President. In times past, the earmark was requested by another Member of Congress, but this time the President has taken it up. After years of trying to close down this entity, the administration has decided that they want to keep it. It has been described by the previous administration as duplicative and ineffective. I think that just about every report we have seen on this center has said that. It is a considerable amount of money, I believe $44 million. We should be saving that. According to the administration officials, by including funding for the NDIC in his budget request, the President helped to establish the Department of Justice as the NDIC's permanent funding source. In this case, I think ``permanent'' is a troubling word, particularly when it regards the NDIC. Reportedly, this shift will also change the NDIC's name to the Center For Strategic Excellence. As Shakespeare once wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I submit that the metaphor remains true, only it is not the perfume of roses that we smell here with the NDIC. The NDIC was established in 1993 and has been the recipient of more than 350 million taxpayer dollars in the 15 years it has been in existence. Despite all the money and time, the NDIC, according to the previous administration, ``has proven ineffective in achieving its assigned mission.'' Now, we all expect the Obama administration to disagree with many determinations by the Bush administration, but the criticism of the NDIC extends beyond the previous administration. A report by the GAO issued shortly after the NDIC's opening way back in 1993 cited 19 other drug intelligence centers that already existed whose functions the NDIC duplicates. So it is not just the previous administration. Long before that, we have recognized that this is money that should and could be saved if we would close down this center. As reported in The Hill on May 14, a review by OMB agreed. They concluded that NDIC's efforts were duplicative of those of the other intelligence agencies. In 2006 a spokesman for DOJ asserted that the resources for the NDIC should be ``realigned to support priority counterterrorism and national security initiatives.'' Mr. Chairman, this is a center begging to be shut down. I don't need to remind anybody here of the problems we are having fiscally. We are running the biggest deficit we have ever run, we have public debt that is just astounding, we have unfunded liabilities that should make us all shudder, and we simply can't keep a center like this open for tens of millions of dollars a year that has been called duplicative and ineffective. So I think that this is an amendment that should pass. We are not targeting, as I mentioned, any Member earmark this time. This is the President's earmark. And part of the role of Congress, one that we have not done well, is to police the administration and to look at what they are allocating and earmarking for. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 87 in the Congressional Record.

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

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, this bill is a bad idea spawned by a bad idea that was spawned by still yet another bad idea--and it will likely spawn a lot of other bad ideas in the future. The first bad idea was to bail out the auto industry in the first place. The second bad idea was for the government to essentially take over the auto industries. We all know that government is not very good at manufacturing anything, so it has to manufacture demand. And that's what this bill is about. It is defying the laws of economics and saying we can manufacture enough demand to keep the auto industries afloat without other measures that they need to take to stay afloat. We can't simply manufacture demand any more than we can defy any of the other laws of economics. A list was given of those who support this legislation. It says it has broad support from Ford, GM, Chrysler, the Automobile Dealers Association, the labor unions, the Chamber of Commerce. Can anybody tell me honestly if anybody on that list has ever turned down a government subsidy of any type? I would submit I've never heard it, not in the time that I've been here. So it shouldn't surprise anybody that this list of individuals or organizations supports this legislation. That doesn't mean that we should. We have a duty to represent the taxpayers as well here. I should note that just this morning there was a press conference about PAYGO--pay-as-you-go, don't pay out anymore than you take in. Where is the money going to come from for this? Perhaps that's why it is on the suspension calendar so that what should govern this place-- what kind of PAYGO rules that we have--don't actually apply. But you've got to pay the piper at some point, and we simply can't continue to go down this road. Madam Speaker, this is a bad idea. This is a clunker of a bill that ought to be retired, and we ought to apply the cash toward our unsustainable deficit.

Mr. FLAKE

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