Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would strike $150,000 for the Burpee Museum in Rockford, Illinois, for educational programming and exhibits and, as mentioned, reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. Now, I don't want to take a lot of time on these amendments. I know a lot of people want to move pretty quickly. Let me just say that I know the name, the Burpee Museum, lends itself to a lot of nice jokes about having dry heaves as a taxpayer and paying this or whatever else.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I apologize.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being used for the Rhode Island College for development of a Portuguese and Lusophone Studies program and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. Let me just make a comment on the last comment that was made. It was said that we aren't saving money with these earmarks if we were to strike funding for them. The way these earmarks are structured, we reduce the cost in the bill by a consistent amount. So whether we save money depends on the Appropriations Committee. In any case, that's always what we are told, we will never save any money by striking funds for earmarks. That's simply not the case ever, because the Appropriations Committee could simply request less money the following year or the prior year, knowing that earmarks were going to be struck down. Let me just say, with regard to this earmark, perhaps something was lost in translation. But my understanding is that this program has already been developed. Are we developing a program here that has already been developed, or is this a redevelopment? According to the Web site, the Rhode Island College officially launched its Institute on Portuguese and Lusophone World Studies in October of 2006. The Web site states that the Institute of Portuguese and Lusophone World Studies is designed to be a nucleus of instruction and interaction for the benefit of its students and the larger Portuguese-speaking community of Rhode Island. The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee says that the money would be used for the Rhode Island College Lusophone Studies program. But since we don't have any further information, I guess we can assume, and I see that the sponsor of the amendment is here, and can clarify this, that the Lusophone World Studies is the intended recipient of the funds. Supporters of the earmark will no doubt note that approximately 10 percent of Rhode Island's population is of Portuguese descent. Through foundation donations and private contributions, over $620,000 has been raised to support the new program at Rhode Island College. In fact, Meredith Vieira, a well-known cohost of NBC's Today Show, and a Rhode Island native, serves as the national honorary chairperson of the Community Campaign for Portuguese Studies Endowment Fund. Here is another case where there is a lot of money coming in. Why in the world do we need to spend more Federal money on it? Why do we need an earmark to divert more funds from our Treasury to programs that seem to exist and subsist fine on their own? In many cases we supplant private or local funds that could be used for this purpose. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would prevent $300,000 from funding the Exploratorium, a science museum in San Francisco, California, and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. Madam Chairman, when I came across this earmark, I decided that I would explore why a successful museum like this would request money from the Federal Government. According to the earmark description in the certification letter submitted to committee, the earmark would fund an initiative to promote professional development for science education teachers. But when my staff and I did research on this earmark, we found that a teacher development program already exists at the museum. According to the museum's Web site, the Teacher Institute trains teachers during the summer sessions, while they participate in a mix of learning experiences designed to help teachers with hands-on activities, inquiry, and strong science content. The institute was founded by numerous corporate sponsors and foundations, including the Noyce Foundation and the Bank of America. All of the teachers who attend the Teacher Institute do so with private support. Again, why is the Federal Government funding an initiative that corporations can and do already fund? The Exploratorium is a science museum that consists of 400 exhibits of art, science and the human perspective. It had over 600,000 visitors just last year. Cost of admission is $14 for adults, $9 for children. Income from government sources, both local and Federal, is almost $12 million. Nearly $9 million was contributed from individuals, corporations and foundations. It hardly seems that this museum is in some kind of financial straits, especially to the point that taxpayers around the country should be asked to help fund a program that would benefit only teachers from one small area of the country. I don't disagree with the sponsor's desire for qualified science teachers in the classroom. Qualified teachers are necessary. But I do take issue with the increase in spending. This bill represents an increase of over $10 billion above the President's request and more than $2 billion over the Senate bill. Spending has got to stop somewhere. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Again, we are simply stopping $300,000 for a museum that has a budget of some $12 million. With that, Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. None was intended. I was just hoping to shorten the conversation here. But this museum began as a Works Progress Administration project in 1942. It's an old New Deal program. It's still around, and one might question why the museum is still receiving Federal funds, even though the Depression era has come and gone, and the WPA has long since closed up shop. I spoke to the author of this amendment. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Manzullo, and he explained some of the things I had a question about. One was a question about where the funding actually goes, was it to the Burpee Museum or was it to Northern Illinois University that has a paleontology department, and as I understand it, is lending staff to the museum. He clarified that, and I think I understand how that goes now. My question is, and the gentleman points out as well and I'm sure he will in defense of this earmark, that this is an economically distressed area. There are many around the country, in every district in the country. If the entire district is not economically depressed, certain areas of it are, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to try to discern by Members of Congress where funding should go and where it should not. And I simply believe that it's not our place here to do this. In many cases, the accounts that we're earmarking are accounts that there is a competitive process at the Federal agency for the funds to be given out. By earmarking, we circumvent that process and we say, well, we know best so that we can decide who gets this funding. I don't believe that that's right, and I believe that we should stop the funding for this earmark. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I'd simply repeat what I said. Virtually every district in the country can accurately say that certain parts of their district are economically depressed. We simply don't have enough money in the Federal Treasury to address all those needs. So our decision is how do we adequately and equitably distribute funds to the Federal Government. If we make the decision that Federal agencies should fund these projects, then we should stick to the process that we have in place, and that process usually involves competitive bidding, for example. We don't want to give up no-bid contracts, but that's what earmarks by definition typically do. So I don't think that that is proper here, and with that, I would urge an affirmative vote on the amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. FLAKE. My time is yielded back, but I would love to take some time to answer that. If I could make the point, tax cuts going out the door. Tax cuts never come in the door. That's the difference between tax cuts and spending. You leave it with the taxpayer, or you give it back.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $150,000 in Federal funds from being used for the American Ballet Theater in New York for educational activities, and it would reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. I should point out that it has been said that if we don't spend this money, those faceless bureaucrats will just spend it. This actually reduces it. So it is up to the Appropriations Committee how that money is spent, not the agency itself. But I think that we could be facing the music if taxpayers learn that we are dancing away with their hard- earned money here. The American Ballet Theater has been home to some of the world's best dancers since 1939. I believe that it holds assets of more than $15 million, $15 million in net assets. Yet, we are being asked to fund $150,000, I believe, to expand outreach by completing in-depth residencies in small and medium-sized communities across the country. I have an obvious love for the ballet. I am not sure if it is that obvious, but I do like culture, and I think it is good for everyone. But telling taxpayers across the country that they should pony up $150,000 for the American Ballet Theater, an organization that has over $150 million in net assets I think is just a bridge too far. There are many corporate sponsors involved in the American Ballet Theater, including American Airlines, Saks Fifth Avenue, Superfund Investing, Countrywide Financial. There are many well-known names on the board who contribute themselves. There is a Kennedy who is an honorary chairman; there is a Trump on the board as well. There is a lot of support out there for this organization. I just fail to see why the Federal taxpayers should be put on the hook for this as well. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I find it curious when it's often said that the gentleman or somebody does not support the arts, does not support education. What would be said if there was a local individual, a philanthropist who gave $10 million to a local university, but did not believe that it was the Federal Government's place to do so? Would that person support education or not? If this is the standard by which people are judged, perhaps not. But I would submit that it's not a very good standard. Just because you don't believe that it's the Federal Government's place, in this case, to favor what is perhaps the best known ballet company in the country, with net assets of more than $15 million, over perhaps local ballet companies that could maybe use more support. How do we make that choice here? It just doesn't seem right to me. We have over 1,300 earmarks in this appropriation bill. I just don't know when Congress is going to draw the line. For the average American taxpayer, I would argue that this $150,000 to the American Ballet Company is too much, or in this case, maybe too, too much. Madam Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment prevents $150,000 from going toward programs at the South Carolina Aquarium in Charleston, South Carolina, and reduces the cost of the bill by a consistent amount. Madam Chairman, when I saw this amendment, or saw this earmark, I thought I was experiencing deja vu here. In the past we've seen earmarks for other aquariums in other appropriations bills. Last year, the Mystic Aquarium received $1 million in the bill allocating funding for the Defense Department. And now we see the South Carolina Aquarium is a beneficiary in the spending bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. This earmark may have found a more appropriate home in this spending bill rather than the Defense bill; but if I were a betting man, I would not bet against seeing other aquarium earmarks in other appropriations bills. It seems to be a trend here that the Federal Government seems to be funding more aquariums across the country, without, I would submit, much of a Federal purpose. The Web site for the South Carolina Aquarium states that the purpose is to inspire conservation of the natural world by exhibiting and caring for animals, excelling in education and research, and providing an exceptional visitor experience. This aquarium sells tickets for $16 for adults, $14 for seniors, $8 for children. It also has a sea turtle hospital, sustainable food initiative, which includes sustainable seafood recipe contests and a variety of exhibits. But I would ask, why do not all aquariums across the country receive similar funding? What is the criteria for picking winners and losers? This aquarium seems to get favorable treatment over aquariums in Massachusetts, Colorado, Arizona, Kansas, as well as just about every other State. Is this a fair and equitable process? In addition, here, the case again is that the aquarium has a number of business partners and sponsors. The list reads like a who's who of Fortune 500 companies: BP, Whole Foods, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage. Why are the taxpayers being asked to be on the hook? Why are we asked to sponsor this aquarium as well? Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $100,000 from being used to fund educational and outreach programs at the Kansas Regional Prison Museum at Lansing, Kansas. I've often joked that the way we splurge taxpayer funds on thousands of earmarks is a crime. But this earmark gives that sentiment a little new relevance. It appears that Leavenworth County in Kansas uniquely hosts Federal, State, military and private prisons, and a regional prison museum is proposed to honor that heritage. This prison museum building would be in addition to the existing Lansing Historical Museum, complete with a gallows chamber, replicated cells and a 12- to 14-foot stone wall around the complex. All told, it appears this prison museum addition would significantly increase the overall display area of the Lansing Historical Museum from roughly 1,500 square feet to nearly 8,000 square feet of display area. Here, I think it is a pretty clear case. It may have some local relevance, but asking taxpayers across the country to pay for a prison museum is probably not a wise use of funds here. The Kansas director of Americans for Prosperity, a grass-roots organization that focuses on taxpayer issues, called earmarking Federal funds for this project ``wasteful Federal spending'' and suggested that ``if there is truly a market for a prison museum, people who find it interesting should pay for it, not the 99.9 percent of taxpayers who will never visit it.'' AFP, or Americans for Prosperity, also suggested that nontaxpayer sources of revenue could be found if there was adequate local support to build an economically viable prison museum in Lansing. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, again, I don't want to diminish the need that the locals feel to have this museum. People around the country have varying needs and wants for museums, whether it is a teapot museum in North Carolina or a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Ohio. Local needs are such and people visit and tourists find that interesting. But why should the Federal taxpayer be on the hook? When do we say, is there a time at which we say enough is enough, we can't handle any more? Thirteen hundred earmarks. Yes, it is down from the heyday of 2005, and I make no excuses for my own party for doing that. But is it right? When should we say enough is enough and simply say we shouldn't be using Federal taxpayer dollars for these kinds of projects? Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I think the gentlelady may want to check the Record with regard to an energy bill. I'm not familiar with any that I voted for because they are hugely corporate subsidies. And let me just say one thing. Charlie brought up, well, you're from Arizona. The Central Arizona Project, the big Federal project, or the Glen Canyon Dam in the 1950s was built largely with Federal funds, as if these were some earmark slipped into a conference report 3 days before the bill came to the floor. Not at all. I mean, no projects were debated more. Nothing went through more authorization, appropriation and now oversight than those projects. I may have voted differently if I were around in the 1950s, but I wasn't. What we're debating here is whether we should spend $150,000 in Federal funds for a local aquarium in Chicago that in 2004 had $215 million in net assets, $50 million in total revenue, and $13 million in excess revenue. That is the question before us. We can talk about Enron. We can talk about the war. We can talk about anything, but this is what's relevant here, whether the taxpayer should be spending $150,000 for an aquarium, a local aquarium that had $50 million in revenue in 1 year alone. It simply doesn't seem right. With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $200,000, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to expand the exhibits and outreach at Jefferson's Poplar Forest in Forest, Virginia. Now, I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson himself would appreciate the sentiment about this, but I'm not sure the earmark is consistent with the Jeffersonian philosophy of ``limited government,'' particularly limited Federal intrusion. He talked about a wise and frugal government in his 1801 inaugural address. I'm not sure that this sits well with that philosophy, spending Federal money, $200,000 in this case. Poplar Forest is an octagonal house, an acreage that was inherited by Jefferson's family. They used it as a retreat in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Now, I won't take too much time on it, but suffice it to say there is a lot of local support for something like this. It sounds like a great house. I enjoy going to Monticello and visiting the sites of Thomas Jefferson. I'm sure that this is a fitting reminder of his life work and historical importance, along with a lot of other things that we have. But here again, there is an infinite need around the country for money for projects like this. If you simply ask the sponsoring Members, if you say that it's needed for economic development or tourism, what earmark would ever fail with that kind of criteria? We simply have to have a higher standard here. Does it have a Federal nexus? Can we afford it? Is it consistent with limited government, economic freedom, individual responsibility? That's what we should be asking ourselves here. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Madam Chairman, to end this debate tonight on these earmarks, I would just say that there has not been one earmark that has been challenged here tonight that isn't going to a valuable organization as far as I'm concerned. The question is not is there value in that organization or is there value in what this aquarium or what this historic site is doing. The question is should we be paying for it at the Federal level. And I think that's what taxpayers have a hard time with, and I think they should, particularly given the fiscal problems that we're having at the Federal level. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I guess I will finish off. I will call for a vote on this one, but I think it's important when Members are voting on this earmark and whether to retain it that we have to know what we know and know what we don't know. We don't know if this center even exists. We are appropriating money for a center where the Appropriations Committee that has a responsibility to vet this earmark can't even tell us here if this even exists. We don't know that. We're voting on an earmark where in the report it says it goes to the center, but here in the certification letter it mentions Concurrent Technology, a private company. Which is it? If we don't know these facts, we don't know what's going on here, I would say the thing to do is to vote this down, to actually vote for the amendment and wait until the Appropriations Committee actually has time to scrub and to vet these earmarks a little more carefully. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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