Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would reduce funding in the bill by $500 million for capital grants to Amtrak, reducing the funding level to the President's fiscal year 2008 request from $925 million to $500 million. Here the same arguments really apply that were made in the last amendment debate, so I won't go over them all again, but let me respond a little to what was said before. It was mentioned that these amendments are just designated to kill Amtrak. If these accounts were funded at the levels that we're talking about here, certainly there would be a restructuring somewhere. There has to be. It is likely that in some of the corridors, some of the corridors there is only a per-passenger subsidy of around $3 per ticket. In some corridors it's up to $466. I suppose that what would happen is that in those corridors, there are a lot of assets sitting with Amtrak now. If it wasn't shielded from private competition, others would come in and be able to run that service effectively and without subsidy in some of the corridors. Perhaps there'd be a smaller subsidy on some of the corridors. But I can tell you on the corridors where we're having a subsidy of $466, in addition to the per-passenger ticket price of, in some cases, $900, I don't think that that would run at all, nor should it in any reasonable place where you believe in free markets or even limited subsidies. There is no more call for passenger rail service to some places in this country than there is for stagecoach service. At some point you've got to say, how much can we subsidize? Four hundred sixty-six dollars per ticket probably is above that threshold somewhere. So, under any reasonable system, yes, this would cause significant restructuring with Amtrak for that system, and that's what we're calling for. That's what we should be calling for. We can't continue to go down this road, because, as mentioned, even if you increase the number of passengers per train, if you increase ridership, it simply means more subsidy. In any reasonable system that wouldn't be the case, but we have a system here that doesn't respond to market forces. Part of the problem with Amtrak, and we can't just blame the system there, but it's the requirements that we've placed on it. You have politicians in this small town here or this small town here designating routes that Amtrak has to follow, routes that can't even come close to being economical. As mentioned, not many passenger rail or public transit systems anywhere in the world go unsubsidized. It's one thing to subsidize public transit; it's another to be paying $466 per ticket when the passenger is already paying $900. That simply doesn't pass any test of reasonableness. And unless we come in and really strike funding here and force change, it's simply not going to happen. Who here in this body or who listening tonight thinks that Amtrak is suddenly going to become better and provide better service, more efficient service, given the numbers that we've given them here? Some will call it a starvation diet. They've been on a starvation diet, but we've increased funding significantly many times. It hasn't improved. It's because we're shielding them from market forces, in some cases, and subsidizing routes that have no business running in others. So I would offer this amendment to strike funding, or to actually bring it down to the President's level, what he has requested. I've heard the chairman of the Appropriations Committee say many times and point out that the administration is wasting money here and there and everywhere. They are. Here's one case where we should say, there's too much money being wasted by the agencies. Let's direct them, let's exercise the oversight that this body is supposed to exercise and actually say, let's pull some funding back, let's force Amtrak to go through the restructuring that they're going to have to go through at some point. We're simply delaying the inevitable and forcing the taxpayer to subsidize at higher levels than they should until that time is reached. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would eliminate funding for the operating subsidy grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or Amtrak, and save the taxpayer $475 million. The FY 2007 funding level was $490 million. The President requested to eliminate funding for this grant program in the FY 2008 budget. According to the committee report, operating subsidy grants allow the Department of Transportation to make quarterly grants to Amtrak after receiving and reviewing a grant request for each train route. This would be accompanied by a detailed financial analysis, revenue projection and capital expenditure projection. Receipt of these grants also requires Amtrak to achieve savings through operating efficiencies, yet Amtrak has been plagued by inefficiencies and debt since its inception. Amtrak's model for providing intercity rail service has been a failure since it began in 1971. Historically Amtrak has carried has less than 1 percent of the traveling public. It is it has required annual Federal subsidies to cover operating losses and capital costs in every year since its existence, some $29 billion in taxpayer resources to date. It lacks adequate cost controls. It has deferred capitalized repair projects, and it confronts increasing debt-service costs. Now, we were told 30 years ago that Amtrak started from the ruins of what was then passenger rail service. Whatever its origins, the market has simply apparently vanished for passenger rail service of this kind. The Heritage Foundation reported that even if Amtrak increases its passenger load, for every passenger that is increased, the taxpayer pays more in subsidies. So, it's like the retail shop owner saying that I am losing money with every sale, but I am going to make up for it in volume. The taxpayers are making up for it in volume every time. There has been a slight increase in passenger service in terms of passengers served over the past couple of years, or at least there was from 2001 to 2004, and still it bleeds red ink all over. Now, contrast this with some cargo service provided by rail. It's largely free of subsidy. It's done by the private sector. There are huge profit margins there. In many routes they do very well. But Amtrak, passenger rail service, simply can't get there. There simply isn't a market for it. Now, those providing cargo service wouldn't want to provide passenger service, because there is no market. But we continue to let the taxpayer subsidize it. As the last speaker mentioned, some routes the subsidy is between $400 and $500 per ticket. The Federal taxpayer could buy each person on a long-distance Amtrak service on some of the routes a plane ticket for what it costs to subsidize their Amtrak travel. That's after they have paid a lot more than a plane ticket would cost in the first place. There simply isn't a market for it. How long will we go on not recognizing it, not recognizing that we need some competition from the private sector to allow it to take it over? If there isn't a market at some point, the taxpayers shouldn't be forced to subsidize it any longer. Let me just finish. We will hear that we need passenger rail service. We will need to catch up to countries like Germany and Japan who are doing it. Apparently they are doing a better job than we are. Who among us here thinks that with the current model of government subsidizing a private corporation like this is going to get us where Germany is or Japan is? As has already been noted, people who study this issue note that with every new passenger added, every net increase in passengers, it's actually more subsidies. So under the current model, unless they change or reform somehow, if they increase ridership, we actually have to pay more in subsidies. That simply doesn't work. It wouldn't work in the private sector. No private businessman would stand it. But the taxpayers are simply on the hook for about $1.2 billion a year. It continues year after year after year. I have been here 6 years. I have heard it every year. I suppose if we go the next 25 years, we will hear it again. It will just be an increase in subsidies, like we are doing this year. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I just want to commend the Democrats. We always said that names should be placed next to the earmarks. This earmark is going beyond the spirit of the law. The name is on the earmark.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. Before talking about this amendment, there wasn't time for me to speak on the last one, I just want to say that I don't think it is the road that we want to go down to start naming facilities or programs after ourselves. I think that the rules may be a bit vague, but they seem clear enough that we shouldn't do that. The dialogue that I heard was, Are you worthy to have something named after you if you have just been here a few years? Does it take 38 years? What does it take? Frankly, I think it would take a lot more than $2 million to get any college or university in my district to name something the ``Flake Center,'' for a myriad of reasons. But, having said that, I just don't think it is a road that we should go down. So that is why I supported the gentleman's amendment. I hope others as they come to the floor will, as well. This amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being used for the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, for exhibits, education programs, and for an archival project. It reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. I couldn't think of any jazzy line here, but I will just say that earmarks like this probably give taxpayers all over the blues. This earmark would come out of the Institute of Museum and Library Services account, or the IMLS. The IMLS administers a competitive grant program for museums, libraries and zoos. This committee has recommended this program be funded with nearly $18 million. Here is part of the problem, I think, with earmarks, particularly in this bill. We are often earmarking funds that are in programs at the agencies that are already designated to be awarded on a competitively bid process. This jazz museum, I am sure, has submitted applications. Perhaps they have won grants over the years. But maybe this year they didn't. So what earmarks typically do are circumvent the process that we have mandated to be established with these agencies. We often complain about Federal agencies not listening to us and going out and spending willy-nilly. That is often the case, certainly. It is our job, then, to call them in and say, we want to change your program. We want to have you competitively bid projects. I should point out that much of what we criticize the agencies for we are doing here in spades. Earmarks are, by their very definition, no- bid contracts. We are saying to people out there, if you can't get your grant through the competitively bid process, come to us anyway, and we will earmark those funds for you. So there is no concept, no discussion of merit. Try as they might, I am sure the Appropriations Committee is not in a position to adequately scrub and vet all of these earmark requests. That is simply not their role and shouldn't be their role. We shouldn't put that burden on the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman whose earmark this is. I believe he knows that. I commend him for earlier than just about anybody putting his earmarks on his Web site. Certainly, this has been a good reform. I have been complimentary, and I remain so, of the majority party's willingness in January to go down this road and actually require this much. It follows some of what we did in the fall as Republicans. Frankly, in some areas, I think it did better than we did. This isn't a case of something looks untoward in this earmark, or somebody is trying to get some private gain. It doesn't seem to me to be that at all. It is simply a question of, is this a proper priority? Should Members of Congress be able to designate money like this, particularly in this case, when we have a Federal agency with a program to award grants and an account with $16 million that we appropriate every year to award grants under this program? That is my question here. I think that certainly, as mentioned, jazz is uniquely American. I can't imagine them submitting a proposal that would not be granted. It seems like a great place. It seems to be appropriate. What is at question here is, should the Congress be doing this? That is where I am. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was brought up before that we're not talking about what the Federal agencies do. We talk a lot about what Congress does with earmarking, but there's an area of complaint I've heard about what the Federal agencies are doing. Well, this is the time to have that discussion. Right now. We're looking to reduce the amount spent, the amount that we appropriate to the Federal agencies. Yes, they waste money, a tremendous amount of money. They waste money in my own district. This is the time that we say, hey, hold back a little, reprioritize, don't spend as much, and yet we're not doing it. Instead, we say, well, you're misspending money and so we're going to misspend some money with earmarking. We don't like the way you have prioritized, so we're not going to actually go in and provide oversight and say, all right, stop spending money this way or that way. We're just going to add to it with our own priorities. Let me just give an example. It's often said we don't ever give examples of specific programs. I'll give you one. I believe it was last year or maybe the year before GAO came out with a study saying that the DARE program was a waste of money, basically, or we weren't getting the bang for the buck that we should. What did we do? We increased funding for it. Instead of saying, you know, maybe it's not run as it should be, maybe we should scale back on it, force them to change it or scrap it altogether, but instead we increased funding for it. That goes on across the board. GAO studies that we often commission are always followed by, well, they must need more money. Not the money's being misspent. They just need more of it. That's what this amendment is all about to say, hey, Federal agencies you're misspending money; you're spending too much; it's time to scale back, and by the way, we can scale back on our own as far as earmarking as well. So we never hear about the Federal agencies misspending. Here's one saying they do. They do in your district; they do in my district. This is the opportunity to say enough is enough. Let's cut back. Let's have some fiscal responsibility here. So I commend the gentleman for his amendment, and I urge everyone to support it.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Again, I think something has been lost in translation here. I have no idea what this amendment has to do with Enron. This amendment is simply saying that the Federal Government need not spend money on this program. This Rhode Island College is a State university, it's my understanding. If the taxpayers in Rhode Island want to decide through their State representatives that it should receive more funding, then by all means it should. My question is why are we coming here to the Federal Government with all the choices out there. The university that I went to, private university, teaches dozens and dozens of languages. I am sure they would like more funding, but it wouldn't be my place to come in and say, all right, let's have a big earmark for the Afrikaans program or the Chinese program or something else. I just don't think that would be proper. We can't do that. Last time I checked, we are running a deficit here, and we have a big debt. To try to fund all of these programs simply is not prudent. It has nothing to do with Enron. It has nothing to do with misplaced priorities elsewhere. It has to do with whether or not the Federal Government should in this case fund an earmark that is circumventing the regular process of authorization and appropriation. There are programs out there through the Department of Education that award grants to universities that have language programs. This is circumventing that process. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would eliminate $150,000 in Federal funds for the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, Illinois, for exhibits and community outreach. Shedding some light on earmarks like this should be one of Congress' top initiatives, and I am glad that we have this opportunity to do it. The certification letter I submitted to the Appropriations Committee by the Member sponsoring the project stated ``the funding would highlight the Great Lakes aquatic ecosystem and incorporate community outreach, team mentor and stewardships program.'' This is the second largest indoor aquarium in the world containing 8,000 animals, 650 species. An ``all access pass'' for admission is $23 for adults and $16 for children, and this aquarium gets 2 million visitors annually. According to the Charity Navigator, annual revenue for the Shedd Aquarium in 2004 totaled over $50 million. This is revenue in 2004 totaling $50 million. In 2004 alone the Shedd Aquarium had over $215 million in net assets and nearly $13 million in excess revenue. Let me read that again. In 2004 alone the Shedd Aquarium had over $215 million in net assets and nearly $13 million in excess revenue. Why in the world, please tell me, are we giving 150,000 hard-earned Federal tax dollars to a local aquarium that has $13 million in excess revenue in 1 single year? It simply doesn't seem right to me. The Shedd Aquarium has applied for and has received at least four competitive IMLS grants in the past, but this earmark skirts that process. Again, we often talk about how we know more about our districts than some faceless bureaucrat in some agency. Well, those faceless bureaucrats in some agency awarded four grants to this institution. But that wasn't enough. They were back for another earmark, where apparently maybe they didn't get the grant this year; so we are going to earmark funds for the organization. Why do we set up a competitive grant program in a Federal agency and then say we are going to go around it by issuing an earmark? Oftentimes we give earmarks to organizations that fail to get a grant, that fail the competitive process that we have ordered the Federal agency to establish. The oversight process dictates that we actually call in Federal agencies if we don't like the processes that they have set up and tell them to set up a new process or we deny them funding. And for those of us who say that they won't talk to us or those Federal agencies are nonresponsive, cut their funding for a while and see how responsive they become. That is our role, not to compete with the Federal agencies in how we can spend taxpayer dollars without competitive bids or without a process in place. And I see that those who sponsored the amendment are here. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FLAKE. I'll claim time in opposition, but I have a feeling that I'm being talked into this rather quickly. By the end of this, I'll be very much in support. In fact, this is one of the best amendments already I think I've ever heard. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned that when he left the committee over a decade ago there were no earmarks in this bill. That's commendable. That's wonderful. We should go back to that. A Member just a few minutes ago talked about how critical this program was that somebody sought to cut funding for. Critical. Has to be there. I think we need a reminder that there were no House earmarks in this bill last year. No Labor-HHS earmarks. The world didn't come crashing to a halt. The year before that there were no earmarks in Labor-HHS because of political problems with it. The planets, as far as I know, stayed in orbit. We don't need these earmarks. I mean, when you look at the list that they'll soon be offering here for an exploratorium in San Francisco, corporation for Jefferson's poplar forest, for expansion of exhibits and research, money for the Burpee Museum in Rockford, Illinois, or the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, or for the American Jazz Museum or American Ballet Theater, are these things that the Federal Government has to be funding, or are they things that could be funded at the local level or by private entities? Are we simply supplanting the free market or private funding with more Federal funding here? The gentleman, distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, makes a great point that it is our prerogative. We have the power of the purse. And we do. The problem with earmarking, in its contemporary form, is that we are circumventing the process here. We are telling the Federal agencies, we don't like what you're doing and so we'll one-up you. We'll make appropriations equally suspect to what you're doing, instead of saying, you know, that was a bad way to spend money, we're going to cut your funding. We're going to call you into hearings and ask you to explain why you're spending money irresponsibly. That is perfectly proper. We should be doing that. But, instead, what we're doing is saying, you think you can spend money willy-nilly; we'll show you. We're going to put 15,000 earmarks in this year, as we did a couple of years ago. I make no excuses for the Republican Party here. Earmarks have grown and became out of control on our watch. As the gentleman pointed out, there were some 1,400 earmarks in all appropriation bills in 1994. In 2005 or 2006, I believe there were over 15,000. That's inexcusable. That's part of the reason we Republicans are here squarely in the minority today. That doesn't excuse us for saying, all right, we're still going to put 1,300 earmarks in this bill. The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee wisely said weeks ago, we simply cannot police this process. We don't have enough staff on the Appropriations Committee. And he offered an alternative suggestion that we wait and find out what the earmarks were. None of us liked that alternative suggestion, but the premise was correct. We can't police these things. Just yesterday I came with an amendment to the Energy and Water bill, and we found out that the center for which the earmark was intended doesn't even exist. We've gone from the bridge to nowhere to the center that's nowhere. And still we funded it. We got only 98 votes opposed because of log-rolling that takes place here. So I certainly sympathize with what's going on here, and I appreciate the gentleman for what he's doing. We have a time-honored practice here in Congress of authorization, appropriation and oversight. Earmarking, in its contemporary form, circumvents that process, where we kick out authorization, we kick out oversight and we just appropriate. We do far too little of the authorizing and oversight, and we just appropriate. Whenever you do 1,300 earmarks in a bill, that's what you're doing. And I would submit that these haven't been scrubbed. Another earmark that I was to propose yesterday, the authors of the earmark came just before and withdrew, actually offered their own amendment to strip the earmark I was going to seek to limit funds for because it hadn't been adequately scrubbed, and they probably knew that it couldn't withstand the scrutiny that came on the House floor. But here we are, there's no way we can offer amendments for 1,300 earmarks. We'd test the patience of the Members and this whole body. We can't do that. But neither can we, or should we go forward and simply approve these as if every Member who has an earmark has a right to it. So I would urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I won't take 4 minutes, but I just want to commend the gentleman for bringing this forward and having such a thoughtful approach to earmarks. I should mention what we will hear today, I am sure many, many times, is that Members will come to the floor and say, It is my district, I know it best; and other Members will say, Let's defer to that Member because that Member knows his district better than anybody else, and, therefore, we should defer all spending decisions to that Member. Let me remind us all, though, that just a couple of weeks ago more than 100 Members from this side of the aisle and 149 Members from that side of the aisle voted to strike an earmark from a Member's district. So I hope that we don't hear that because that is not always the case. We make policy for the entire country, and we spend the taxpayers' money, and it is not always the case that any Member should have his or her way in their district. So I think that this is a thoughtful process and I would support this. It looks like that there are conflicting amendments that are similar, and I hope that one of them passes to strike all earmarks from the bill.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I would have hoped that the sponsor of the amendment, which I believe is the Speaker of the House, would have come here to defend it or talk more about it. That was a nice description, but again, the point isn't whether this is a worthy program or not or whether or not we need science teachers. I've had some rather dull ones as well, and I would rather have ones that are taught well and can teach well. But this museum has $12 million in revenue. This is 300,000 additional dollars given by the Federal Government. Why are we doing this? It's not because it's needed. It's because somebody can. I would submit that when we are running a deficit like we are in this country and we have the debt like we do, why in the world are we doing this? What possible nexus is there for the Federal Government to come in and supplant private dollars with taxpayer dollars? With that, I would urge adoption of the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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