Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Speaker. And while the Speaker of the House is actually in the Chamber, I want to read a quote from March of this year. In March of this year, the Speaker of the House said, ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to read it. That should be a matter of public record. If there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.'' Let me just ask, if I can, the representative from the Rules Committee, don't we have a rule that says that we are not to consider a bill or a rule until 24 hours after the bill is actually out there? I would yield to the gentleman to answer. My understanding is that this bill was posted on the Web last night at just after 7 o'clock, yet here we are at 1:35 already considering the rule. I think that is important, because when you look at the bill, we didn't just get it on the Internet where it would be searchable, where we could find things in it. We got a PDF file that is not searchable. When you look at the bill itself, you find complete sections that have been X'd out, or little insertions with little notations here that are barely legible. You have another big insertion here of an entire page. Again, there are little insertions there within the insertion. You have within it ``3 percent'' stricken. It says ``4 percent'' now. To what? This is really difficult to wade through. And when we don't even get 24 hours? I mean, 24 hours, frankly, is far from sufficient to consider a bill that is 531 pages long. Then when you consider the bill itself is not searchable, it was given in a PDF file, and then you also have 141 pages of earmarks that are part of the report. That is not a searchable index, either. It is just given. You can wade through it. The earmarks that are air-dropped into the conference report are supposed to be asterisked. You can see some of those. We identified 21. But is that all there is? We're not sure. But when you look through that list of earmarks that were air-dropped in, you have to be suspicious of why in the world we waited until now to air-drop these earmarks in when nobody can challenge them. Keep in mind, this is a point of order against consideration of the rule. Because the majority has chosen to waive the rule against points of order on the bill, we can't challenge any of the earmarks in the bill, so we have 21 earmarks air-dropped into the bill at the last minute that we have no ability to challenge. You might think that, well, if they were air-dropped into the bill, then they certainly must be vital spending, vital projects, that we just couldn't do during the regular consideration of the bill. I will read a couple of them and you can make your own decisions on whether or not this was vital spending, something that couldn't wait, something that was so important that you had to, at the last minute, in the last 24 hours, include it in where nobody could see it. One is for $200,000 for the Intergenerational Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. The Intergenerational Research Center, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, for a community center. This is part of the Economic Development Initiative. Another one: Waynesburg College Center for Economic Development in Pennsylvania for a multipurpose facility. That is $300,000 there. Tell me, please, somebody tell me, what was so vital here that we had to violate the rules that we have had in the House to insert this at the last minute, when nobody has the ability to challenge it? With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Well, we've waived other requirements as well here. What this point of order is about is transparency. Again, we got this bill last night, less than 24 hours ago. It has always been the understanding you would have at least 24 hours, and we are violating that even. When you look at the bill itself, here I found another page, section 409, we're not sure what was there, because it is now gone. It is gone from the bill. It is very difficult to go through a bill that is 534 pages that is not even searchable and wade through the earmarks. The gentleman mentioned this is vital spending we have to get done. Let me give you an example of some of what is in the bill itself. $150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia. $275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts.

Mr. FLAKE. How much time remains on this side?

Mr. FLAKE. I am glad to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for that clarification. Let me get back to this list of these vital projects that we somehow have to rush through here. There is $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Bel Alton, Maryland. Again, $400,000 for the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association. Why in the world is this in the bill at all? Is it any wonder that somebody wants to move this bill through quickly and without following the rules? $500,000 for the Los Angeles Fire Museum in Bellflower, California; two earmarks totaling $300,000 to revitalize downtown Clearwater, Florida; $150,000 for the Edmunds Arts Center in Edmunds, Washington; $100,000 for Cooters Pond Park in Prattville, Alabama; $100,000 for the reuse of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Romney, West Virginia; $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; and $300,000 to the Houston, Zoo in Houston, Texas. Again, this is just a tiny sliver of the 141 pages of earmarks in the bill, more than 1,000 of them. And again, 21 air-dropped earmarks that we have never seen before, never had the ability to challenge on the House floor for such vital things as the Grand Teton National Park Pathway System in Wyoming. This may be a good project, but it should receive the scrutiny it deserves, not air-dropped into a report that we are given less than 24 hours to consider, that we have no ability, none, to amend out. Or $500,000 for Park Street Streetscape Improvement in Alameda, California. Why in the world was this that vital where we had to violate our own rules to bring this to the floor and hide these earmarks where they don't see the light of day?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to Mr. Campbell from California.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. FLAKE. In my remaining 30 seconds, let me just say, in January when we passed transparency rules on earmarks, I was the first one to compliment the majority on what they had done. We put some decent rules into play. But rules are only as good as your willingness to enforce them. And we have seen a pattern over the past several months culminating in this kind of thing, breaking the rules so we can bring a bill to the floor with 21 air-dropped earmarks into it where we are simply not following our own rules. This institution deserves better than this. I plead with my colleagues to vote to stop this bill from moving forward until we can actually see what's in it.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. No. These were all in the House version, the House version that we had just a couple of days to digest, and we were only able to offer in reality few amendments in keeping with the comity of the House. This shouldn't substitute for real vetting or real scrutiny when you have earmarks like this. And particularly, I didn't mention and I could read the 21 air-dropped earmarks, the ones that were put in last night that because the majority has waived the rules, we have no ability to actually challenge. We don't know if these earmarks are meritorious or not because they were air-dropped in last night. I'm reading these that were in the House-passed version of the bill. Let me read through a few more and maybe this will clarify it: $150,000 for the Atlanta Botanical Gardens in Atlanta, Georgia; $275,000 for the Berkshire Music Hall in Pittsfield, Massachusetts; $400,000 to the Bel Alton High School Alumni Association in Maryland; $500,000 for the Los Angeles County Fire Museum in Bellflower, California.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that just spoke talked about how the committee had done so well with such limited resources and makes it sound like this is positively a skinflint bill, that we're just making do with what we have. The truth is we are well over the President's budget that he submitted. Let me just give people a flavor for what's in this bill. This is just a slice of the 150 pages of earmarks, more than 1,000 earmarks that were in this bill, 21 of them air-dropped last night that we had no idea were here until today, but here is just an example of some of them in the House-passed version: There is $100,000 for the Crystal Lake Art Center in Frankfort, Michigan; $750,000 to the Detroit Science Center in Detroit, Michigan; $300,000 for the Houston zoo; $200,000 for the Huntsville Museum of Art in Huntsville, Alabama; $100,000 for the Los Angeles Fashion District in Los Angeles, California; $150,000 for the Louis Armstrong House Museum in Flushing, New York; $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Bishop, California; $150,000 to the Renaissance Art Center, Inc., in Rupert, Idaho; $200,000 to the Fruitvale Cultural and Performing Arts Center in Oakland, California; $100,000 for the 1924 Vaudeville Theater in Plattsburgh, New York; $200,000 for the Hunting and Fishing Museum of Pennsylvania; $100,000 for the Lincoln Museum in Hodgenville, Kentucky.

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

Mr. FLAKE. That is correct.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 806 under section 2 of H. Res. 491 because the resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against the conference report and its consideration.

Mr. FLAKE. I would be glad to yield time to the gentlewoman if she would inform us as to why all points of order were waived against the bill itself. This is not a parliamentary ruse here. This is a response to a parliamentary ruse. The parliamentary ruse is air-dropping earmarks into a bill and then waiving all points of order against or waiving all points of order against that bill so all we can do here is raise a point of order against the rule itself. So the parliamentary ruse here was actually used by the majority party to hide these earmarks, in particular a $3 million earmark for golf in the Defense bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

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

Mr. FLAKE. I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let's get down to the bottom line about what this is about. At the beginning of the year, we were promised transparency. We were promised that if earmarks were dropped in to a conference report, if they weren't considered by either the House or the Senate, that we would have the opportunity to challenge those earmarks, that we would have the opportunity to shine a light on them, to actually see what they are about. We are not getting that opportunity because we have waived the rule. What good are rules if they are waived routinely? Let me say, this is not our rule on this side. We were glad to see it. But it is the majority's rule, and it is being waived. It is no surprise here when you look at the earmarks that are in, 24 earmarks, some of them are to private companies. These are sole-sourced contracts, single-source contracts, no-bid contracts to private companies and to universities. We have no opportunity to see what they are about. None. We just got the list 24 hours ago. We don't have the opportunity to challenge those. The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, many media outlets over the past couple of weeks have raised issues about these defense contracts, the ones that went through the House and the Senate, whether or not they are appropriate, whether they are linked to campaign contributions coming back, a whole host of questions are raised; yet we have no ability here, because the rules are waived, and we can't even challenge these. And then when you see an earmark for golf in the Defense bill, you have to say, you know, did they intend on hiding this? Would that withstand the scrutiny when it comes to the floor? We have the Woodstock earmark over in the Senate, the hippie museum that didn't withstand the scrutiny. We had one over here on this side this year that didn't withstand the scrutiny. I raised a couple of earmarks, one of which the sponsor came to the floor before I could get here to withdraw his own earmark. In another case, the majority party Appropriations Committee went to the Rules Committee and said remove these earmarks because there is questions about them. That is just on a few earmarks we were able to challenge. So there may well be those questions here, as well. Or, you have to wonder if this Caddyshack earmark would have made it through the scrutiny that would have come had we been able to challenge it in the House. Or would enough Members say, you know, maybe we shouldn't be funding golf in the Defense bill. Is it any wonder that an earmark for golf is hidden in the Defense bill? That is what we have to ask.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. H. Res. 491 says it shall not be in order to consider a conference report unless the joint explanatory statement includes a list of congressional earmarks that were air-dropped into it or that were not committed to the conference committee by either Chamber. It's unfortunate, just like the Labor-HHS bill, the majority has reported a rule that waives all points of order. Yet, I have to ask here: if we've done everything right, if we've done the transparency that we committed to earlier in the year, why are we waiving all points of order against the bill? Why are we doing this again, second time this week? We have these transparency rules that we hyped at the beginning of the year that we aren't going to have air-dropped earmarks into a conference report that can't be challenged; yet here again, here we go, waiving all points of order against the bill. That is why I am raising the point of order against the rule; it's the only option I have to highlight what is going on here. In a press conference in March, the Speaker of the House said: ``Before Members vote on a bill, there should be appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there is an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.'' The majority leader, in March, said: ``Let no one be mistaken, after the earmark explosion under Republican leadership, Democrats have led the way in bringing transparency and accountability to earmarks.'' It appears that we're not doing that now. The majority leader also said: ``This is a new day and a new Congress. The days of hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil are over. This Congress embraces its constitutional responsibility to conduct real, meaningful oversight, as well as our values of openness and transparency.'' Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that when you have a conference report and we finally get a look at it last night, less than 12 hours ago or so, and there are more than two dozen earmarks air-dropped into it, this is the first we've seen of them, we haven't seen any of them before this time, that is not the model of transparency. That is not openness. We have no ability to challenge those earmarks. None. We can't highlight them and say you vote up or down on this earmark. The joint explanatory statement says that there are 24 Defense earmarks that were not passed by either Chamber, costing $59 million. Let me give you just one example of what's in there. There is one of these earmarks, $3 million earmark in the Defense bill, remember, this is the Defense bill we're talking about, a $3 million earmark for a program, according to The Hill newspaper, intended to attract disadvantaged and minority children to the game of golf. This is the game of golf in a Defense bill. Is it any wonder, should anybody be surprised that this was an earmark that was air-dropped into the conference report when we don't have the ability in this Chamber to challenge it? This is the only opportunity we have, a procedural vote, as to whether to move forward on the rule. Now, that is not openness, that is not transparency. It's often brought up that the Republicans, when we were in charge, we did the same thing. We did, and we played the political price for it. We shouldn't have done it. It shouldn't excuse what's going on today. This is supposed to be a new day in Congress. This is business as usual. This is par for the course, to use a bad pun, to put a golf earmark in a Defense bill, and to hide it until the last day, until nobody can challenge it anymore. Now, we may think that that's cute here, but I can tell you people across the country have got to be incensed with it. And we felt the brunt of it, as Republicans, last year. I would suggest that, unless the majority party sees its way clear to change this practice, they're going to feel the brunt of it as well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, the day after the House passed the Labor- HHS spending bill containing more than 2,000 earmarks, we got a look at the Defense bill. What we're finding is troubling to say the least. Again, there are more than 2,000 earmarks in this bill, a bill that is intended for the military. Now, we all know that earmarks draw funds away from more urgent priorities. Nowhere is this more clear than with the military spending bill. Simply put, every dollar that Congress has earmarked in the Defense bill is a dollar that troops won't have for critical equipment. What's so important that it diverts money away from soldiers? Well, air-dropped into this conference report and this Defense appropriation bill, $3 million for a golf program for kids. This earmark might be par for the course in any other bill, but in the Defense bill, it's clearly indefensible. I don't believe that earmarks like this represent the sentiments of the country when it comes to military spending, and I urge my colleagues to reject the bill until the earmarks are removed.