Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, it's my intent to offer a number of earmark limitation amendments to the FY 2008 Agriculture appropriation bill. In offering these earmark limitation amendments, I hope that my colleagues will join me in finally grabbing the reins on runaway earmark spending, and if you will pardon the pun, plant the seed of fiscal discipline in the appropriation process. In its present form, this bill is under veto threat because it jumps the rails of the President's plan to have a balanced budget by 2012 by close to $1 billion. Part of the $1 billion increase in spending over last year's levels is caused by over 400 earmarks in the bill worth over $300 million that direct taxpayer dollars to congressionally selected projects. As my colleagues have heard me say a few too many times, I am sure, passing appropriation bills that contain hundreds of earmarks worth millions of dollars that are simply noted by phrases in the committee report shortchanges the legislative process of authorization, appropriation and oversight. The earmarking process is fraught with a lack of transparency, fiscal responsibility and equity for taxpayers, all too often rewarding the districts of powerful Members of Congress in the Appropriations Committee at the expense of the rest of the body. Let me just note that, according to a review of the bill in a report by Taxpayers for Common Sense, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership, who make up 5 percent of the House, will take home one-third of the dollar value of agricultural earmarks, nearly $100 million. If you assume that earmarks with multiple sponsors are shared equally, members of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and party leadership will send an average of about 4 million earmarked dollars back to their districts. In contrast, if you look at the remaining earmarked funds and distribute them evenly over the remaining 400-plus House districts, at best they would value slightly less than $500,000. As I have said repeatedly, we are creating winners and losers here. I'm usually referring to industries that are refunded by the earmarks. But it is true also here in Congress, if you are a seasoned Member in a position of influence, you typically get a lot more. It is simply not right for all the high-minded purpose we give to the contemporary practice of earmarks, talking about Article 1 of the Constitution and the authority it gives us, to then turn around and the leadership and the members of the Appropriations Subcommittee that control the bill get so much more than anyone else. It hardly seems fair. It hardly seems right. In particular, this amendment would prohibit $878,046 in Federal funds from being used for catfish genome research in Auburn, Alabama, and would reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. I think that this is definitely one earmark that the taxpayers would love to throw back. According to the earmark description in the certification letter, the funding would go to Auburn University ``to help continue important research into the genomic behavior of catfish in order to resist and cope with virulent disease strains.'' It appears to me that the earmark is intended to make a genetic map of catfish. Mr. Chairman, there are so many earmarks in this bill related to genetic research, I feel I am on some kind of farm-based CSI episode. Unfortunately, this isn't a creative drama. This spending is far too real. This seems to be a perennial earmark. It has received over $1 million in the last 3 fiscal years alone. Where is the Federal nexus here? Why are we funding catfish research and not trout research? What about sunfish out there? Don't they deserve something? How do we choose here? How do we choose which university gets the funding? It is simply an arbitrary process based on your position on a committee or in the Congress. Mr. Chairman, that seems wrong to me. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say, nobody questions the validity or the importance of research. Every industry needs to do it, and do a lot of it. But we have a lot of high-tech industries that are vital to this country. Why aren't we funding a company like Intel, for example, for issues related to testing of circuit boards? That is important. They face international competition. Why do we say all right here, only we are going to fund grape research? Also, when we have a program over at the Department of Agriculture that we fund to the tune of a billion dollars this year to actually provide grants in this area, and still it is not enough. Still we say we have to earmark funds to go around that process. It seems like overkill, and I think the taxpayer deserves a break here at some point.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say there is over at the Department of Agriculture something called the Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, account, and it is being funded at over $1 billion for fiscal year 2008. Now, we may not like the programs they choose to fund. If we don't like it and we don't think they have a good process, we should exercise the oversight that we are supposed to exercise and change it. But to circumvent that process and say because you may not have given us a grant in one particular year then we are simply going to go around you and earmark, that simply seems wrong. We are getting away from the authorization, appropriation, oversight program and process that has been the hallmark of this Congress forever. With earmarking, the contemporary process of earmarking, we are circumventing that and we do very little oversight of the Federal agencies, because we are seeking to compete with them. We set up a program over there and we say you have a merit-based program, a competitive grant program, and then, when they don't choose what we want to, we circumvent it.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $628,843 for the Grape Genetics Program at Cornell University and reduce the cost of the bill by a corresponding amount. Mr. Chairman, it would seem that Congress is a one-stop shop for the wine industry. There is in this bill here $628,843 earmarked for the Grape Genetics Program, as mentioned, in addition to a $2.6 million earmark to actually construct the Center for Grape Genetics. The earmark description in the certification letter submitted to the committee by the sponsor of the earmark informs us that this earmark would fund a full-time grape geneticist at the Grape Genetics Research Unit and support the viability of the grape and wine industry. Now, according to some, the wine industry faces a growing demand for new technologies and varieties in order to be a player in the global marketplace. I don't doubt that at all. I don't deny that research and development is important to the wine and grape industry. I simply question why the Federal Government is expected to foot the bill for a private industry. According to recent reports, direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year. Let me repeat that. Direct sales of wine to consumers are up 30 percent this year. According to a study unveiled by the Congressional Wine Caucus earlier this year, the U.S. wine, grape and grape products industry contributes more than $160 billion annually to the U.S. economy, $160 billion annually. This study indicated that the industry supports more than 1 million full-time equivalent positions and that there are more than 900,000 grape-bearing acres in the U.S. In addition, according to the 2006 report by the USDA, New York has 239 wineries currently, as opposed to 17 in 1976. I would submit that this looks like an industry that is thriving. If the Federal Government is going to support genetic research for one industry, why doesn't the Federal Government provide support for all of them? What mechanism is there to stop Congress from funding mold research on gourmet cheese, or soil research for truffle farming? Where does it stop? Where is the Federal nexus here? Why do we continue to fund these profitable industries? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to close, again, research is important in every industry, but there are industries all over the country in agriculture, in high tech, in storage, in transportation, you name it. It is going on all over, and not everyone is looking to the Federal Government to pay their research costs. Why here? Why do we have an organization that gets earmarks virtually every year for the same thing over and over and over again? When does the taxpayer get a break? When is this industry weaned? We just had a farm bill pass last week with subsidies going on and on and on. Here are more agricultural subsidies. I don't know where it stops, particularly with the deficit we have, the ongoing debt that we carry. It is time to give the taxpayers a break. I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, nobody here is questioning the need for research. Every industry does it. Every industry has to do it to survive because of competition. What I question here is why the taxpayer is spending $6 million every year on this same earmark for a $60 billion industry. This money goes to universities all over the country, so does research money from paper companies that are in the department next door. There is research being funded. This is a pittance compared to the other research dollars that are being spent. Thank goodness, private industry knows that they have to do it. But why does a taxpayer have to be on the hook again and again and again year after year after year for this same earmark for wood utilization?

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $6,371,000 and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount from being used to research wood utilization. This is the second year in a row I have stood to address this earmark. It seems that not much has changed in the past year of wood utilization research. The committee provided precisely the same amount of funding last year, $6,371,000, for a variety of projects around the country that frankly seem designed to provide a solution in search of a problem. This is another example of an earmark that has persisted for years that can only be terminated by Congress. The wood utilization program has received Federal funds since 1985 and has received more than $90 million in appropriations. The United States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood products used in residential construction and in commercial wood products such as furniture and containers. The United States is also a leader in the pulp and paper business, producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp and 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board. About 1.3 million people are directly employed in the planning, growing, managing, and harvesting of trees and the production of wood and paper products in all 50 States. The forest industry ranks among the top 10 manufacturing employers in about 42 States with an annual payroll of about $60 billion. This is an industry that dates back hundreds of years and has shown itself remarkably capable to adapt to change. It obviously continues to thrive today. I sincerely question why the Federal Government needs to involve itself in a program that educates students about the utility of wood as a renewable resource. What happened to the free market? What happened to common sense? I think we have had it out there for a while. After 1985, we have been doing this same earmark or this same program for the past several years, or it has been earmarked for the past several years. I would say it's time to reconsider the project. I think the taxpayers may want to take us to the woodshed themselves for continuing to fund at a price of $6,371,000 this same earmark year after year after year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Is the gentlelady out of time?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, well, I should say I haven't been very successful here. I have noted before I have been beaten like a rented mule here quite a bit. But I must say the majority of Democrats did join me in actually striking an earmark a couple of weeks ago, one Member, and I had the occasion just today of one earmark that I had planned to strike was stricken by the Member himself before I could strike it. So there are occasions when the Appropriations Committee, for whatever reason, I sympathize with them. They simply don't have the time to vet all of these. I would suggest, when you have 410 earmarks in one bill like this, you simply don't have a lot of time to vet them. I know a little bit about cattle ranching. As I mentioned, I grew up on a cattle ranch. The gentleman mentioned the process of moving cattle from one cell to another. Actually, we started doing that on the F-Bar some 30 years ago and are still doing it to some extent. The gentlelady mentioned this is a consortium, four universities, I believe, getting these research dollars, but it's earmarked for that consortium. That consortium could apply to the Department of Agriculture for universities like this. I suppose, cattle have four stomachs, four universities, only makes sense, but they can apply directly to the Department of Agriculture. They don't have to get earmark dollars. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentlewoman mentioned that this is not a single-source contract or single-bid contract. I have the certification letter. It says I'm requesting funding for South Dakota State University in Brookings, South Dakota, to conduct research into production of environmental aspects of ruminant livestock production, et cetera, et cetera. What used to be a competitive grant process is no longer with this earmark. We do have a competitive grant process at the Department of Agriculture. Now, this school may choose to have a competitive grant process beyond that, but we're using Federal dollars to give to one university to perhaps disburse among other universities. If we don't like the process over at the Department of Agriculture, we should end it. We should say we're not going to fund that account anymore, that billion dollars we're giving you is not being disbursed equitably nor wisely. If we believe that, we should tell them. We'd save a lot of money and instead contract with others at the local level and just give it out. But what we're doing here is we're funding both. We're having a process over there where a billion dollars is handed out competitively with some kind of process, merit-based process, and we're going around that and earmarking funds for specific institutions. It simply seems wrong. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to prohibit funding for an earmark for the Ruminant Nutrition Consortium. This earmark would provide $489,000 for ruminant livestock production research, rangeland integration and other livestock resources. A press release issued from this earmark in a previous year described it as an effort in the northern plains to further develop beef, dairy and sheep finish-feeding, which may lead to more jobs and more value- added agriculture. Mr. Chairman, I know a little about cattle nutrition. I spent a lot of years on a ranch and a farm; and, in fact, I spent years on what we call bloat watch, where we'd sit at the edge of a field and have to watch while cattle, being the type of ruminant digestive system that they have, might bloat. And you'd have to run and stab the left side and hopefully relieve the suffering and relieve the certain death that comes. I think this is an effort to relieve a little bloat that is here in this Agricultural appropriation bill and certainly in this budget. There is simply no reason we should continue to fund research like this when we have, as mentioned already many times tonight, we have an account over at the Department of Agriculture that is for this purpose to dispense research dollars based on competition, where there are groups that are out there will compete for grants. We've told the Department of Agriculture to set up that program, and here we're saying it's not good enough. We're going to have that program; and then, in addition, we're going to give what essentially is a sole-source contract, single bidder. One university or one entity will get this earmark grant. So it's simply not right. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Yesterday, we passed lobby reform legislation that deals with earmarks, gives Members certain notice. You have to put your name next to it. There is certain transparency and accountability, some of which is good. I should note, with this legislation, in the middle of the night last night we did the equivalent of earmarking on an authorization bill. We, in the middle of the night, designated some 25 hospitals, giving them a different designation, which will save those hospitals millions and millions of dollars. That's the equivalent of appropriation earmarks in an authorization bill, done without debate, without notice. We're getting it now. And there is a process within the executive branch to deal with this. We have circumvented that process and said we're going to do it legislatively. That is simply not right and certainly not in keeping with the spirit of legislation that was passed just yesterday.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As the gentleman from Oregon said, this is simply a commonsense amendment. In the days after Katrina, people were able to lock in artificially low prices and make billions, billions of dollars at the expense of the taxpayer when they then sold at the higher price. So it was simply a way to game the system. That's all it was. There's no other explanation for it. And to say that the agricultural community rejects it doesn't say anything about its worthiness as a commonsense reform measure. This needs to be done. It's common sense. There's no justifiable explanation to allow people to game the system.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Let me simply say that it's often said through earmarking we are simply asserting our right and the responsibility we have as Members of Congress under article 1. Under article 1, we certainly have the power of the purse. The problem is, I think the contemporary practice of earmarking, when you bring a bill to the floor that has over 1,500 earmarks, you diminish that responsibility that you have, because we go around or circumvent the careful process of authorization, appropriation, and oversight that is a time-honored practice and hallmark of this institution. When we earmark, we get away from that and not enhance it. That's the reason for bringing these amendments forward.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Let me just pay tribute first to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) for the hard work in bringing this amendment and being the lead sponsor to the floor. It strikes me that the committee in this case, as the saying goes, is traipsing down a flower-strewn path unpricked by the thorns of reason. We are running headlong, whether we like it or not, into international trade agreements that will not coexist with the status quo bill. We cannot move forward and maintain the access we have to world markets or increase access to other world markets with this bill. We simply can't. Nor can we maintain the fiscal burden carrying this forward. We need a real reform bill, a reform bill that really looks out for family farms, as opposed to protecting those who are gobbling up family farms. That is what this reform bill is all about. Members of this body have wanted an opportunity to vote for a bill that doesn't increase taxes, that has real reform. This is that chance. This is the amendment. This is the chance to actually do that. We need real reform, reform that allows us to go forward, that allows the American farmer to actually become independent and independently competitive globally. The status quo bill, the committee bill, just doesn't do that. It doesn't cut direct payments. As much as we have heard that tonight, it doesn't. High prices have done that. There is no cut in direct payments at all here. Only prices have done that. I urge support of this amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).