Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $750,000, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to fund an earmark for the Alliance for NanoHealth, or ANH. The ANH is comprised of seven universities and scientific institutions headquartered in Houston, Texas. ANH's mission is to collectively bridge the disciplines to develop nanotechnology-based solutions to unresolved problems in medicine. This earmark, according to the certification letters submitted by the sponsor, will be used for electron microscopy equipment, a high- resolution CCD camera, freezing apparatuses as well, for training and for upgrades for shared equipment purchases. In 2004, the Federal Government provided $2.4 million in start-up funding for the alliance through an earmark in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2005, the Alliance for NanoHealth received a total of $7.4 million in Federal earmarks. In addition to the earmark in this bill, ANH is scheduled to receive another $1 million for fiscal year 2008 in the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill. There is a competitive and transparent process for awarding Federal research contracts and Federal grants, but this is not it. Let me be clear. I congratulate the alliance for its work and for its contributions to society. I believe that we, as lawmakers, should do everything we can to encourage more private sector research and development activity, but there is a troubling and growing tendency to replace private sector activity with governmental intervention. This earmark bears witness to that. Just look at the 2006 endowment ratings for the university members of the Alliance for NanoHealth: Number 4 on the list, University of Texas system, $13.2 billion; number 10 on the list, Texas A&M, $5.6 billion; number 55, Baylor Medical School, $1.1 billion; and the list goes on. Let us not allow the Federal Government to push private donors aside and remove the incentive for them to contribute in this or any other endeavor. And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit a million dollars, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to fund an earmark for the ACE Program at the Maricopa County Community Colleges. While I am often criticized for meddling in the congressional districts of other Members in my attempts to make Federal spending on earmarks transparent, that accusation would be unfounded with this amendment. As the saying goes, ``all politics is local,'' and this amendment makes that a truism, with a portion of Maricopa County within the boundaries of the district I represent. As I am sure the sponsor of this earmark will be proud to tell you, the Achieving a College Education program was started in 1988 at one of the community colleges in the Maricopa system, and has spread to all 10 of its institutions. According to the ACE Program Web site, the program is a partnership between community colleges and local high schools that was designed to reduce dropouts among at-risk high school students and transition them to community colleges and university studies. It would be foolish and not truthful for me to stand here and say the program is not making a valuable contribution to Maricopa County. However, the criteria for receiving another Federal handout of $1 million cannot and should not rest simply on whether a program is doing valuable things. I am certain that at many, if not all, of the hundreds upon hundreds of community colleges across the country there are important programs that are making valuable contributions to their communities. Surely the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund all of those programs. So how do we choose? How does Congress decide which important, valuable programs get funded with taxpayer dollars and which do not? The willingness of Members of Congress to give Federal handouts to a select few has led to more than $5 billion in earmarks in this appropriations bill, a bill that is more than $1 billion over the President's request and has garnered a veto threat because of it. In addition, this earmark is focused on education and raises the question of why it is being funded out of the account of the Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. It is my understanding that Federal funding for the ACE Program came through the Department of Housing and Urban Development in previous years. Other earmarks in the account of the Office of the Administrator for educational programs seem to highlight math and science education. While components of the ACE Program highlight math, science, technology or engineering, this appears to be only one facet of the program and not the sole purpose at all. In fact, other components also appear to highlight health services, business industry technology, community service, adult education, personal finance, and other areas. I would submit to my colleagues again that if simply having a program that makes a valuable contribution were enough to warrant being awarded millions of dollars, the Treasury would soon be empty. Further, I would submit that an earmark of this variety is misplaced in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, and should at the very least be considered in the upcoming Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some kind of discussion on this, but apparently not. Apparently the sponsor of the earmark doesn't want to speak to it or we're just going to leave it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, there is another disturbing trend here. It's often thought that if there is a bipartisan basis for the offering of these earmarks that it's okay. As long as 60 percent goes to the majority, 40 percent to the minority, then it's okay whatever you fund. That shouldn't be the basis on which we distribute taxpayer dollars at all. In this case, for science grants there is a competitive and transparent process at the Federal agency level. If we're not happy with that process, we should intervene in that process, change it, mandate a more competitive process or a change in the process, instead of supplanting that process with one of our own that is far less competitive, that really is just political, because it pits one Member against another or one committee against another. That's not how money should be awarded. If the agencies have too much money, we should cut it. If they don't have enough, we should add more. We should stipulate, we should mandate, we should have oversight of those agencies. But basically saying we're just going to have our own process because we don't like what they're doing over there is not the right way to go. And I would say that this earmark is a good example of that, and for that reason, I offer the amendment and would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I was tempted just not to offer any other amendments and just offer this one because this one is important for everyone to focus on because it points at problems not just with the earmark itself but with the process that we have in the House. And I would submit that we are not following that process as we should. This amendment would strike funding for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure. The center is to receive $1 million in taxpayer funding in this bill. When searching on the Web, my staff and I were unable to find the center's Web site. I'm not sure whether the center currently exists or whether this earmark creates the center. I would appreciate if the sponsor of this earmark would clear that up. All the bill says is that it funds $1 million for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Pennsylvania. However, when you look at the certification letter that each Member now, according to our earmark rule, is required to submit, you see that the earmark is actually going to the Concurrent Technology Corporation based in Jonestown, Pennsylvania. This is a leading earmark recipient in multiple appropriation bills over the years. Currently in this year, I believe in the Intelligence authorization bill this same group, Concurrent Technology, received two other earmarks. Why isn't that in the earmark itself in what we were handed? We only learned that through the certification letter. Is the earmark to go to the Instrumented Critical Infrastructure Center or to Concurrent Technology? I would love to have that clarified here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I take it the sponsor of this earmark is not here to talk about it, but if I could ask the chairman where the earmark is supposed to go. Does the earmark go to this Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure or to Concurrent Technology?

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. We were told in this process early on by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that a different process was needed, that the earmarks should be added later in conference and not now because the Appropriations Committee simply couldn't vet or scrub these earmarks well enough. I would submit that this is a perfect example of that. We've had another example. One earmark was actually withdrawn, one on the list that I was to offer, because it hadn't been adequately scrubbed. I would submit that this one should be as well, when the chairman of the relevant subcommittee can't tell us if this center even exists. We don't know if it even exists, if it's created by this earmark. Concurrent Technology has been the recipient of millions upon millions of dollars over the years. The executives in Concurrent Technology contribute handsomely to Members of Congress. So it receives a lot of earmarks. It seems to be an earmark incubator of some type, an earmark that begets more earmarks. And yet we have the report that comes with the bill that doesn't even mention Concurrent Technology. It just mentions this center as if it already existed. We don't even know if it does. We can't even find any information on it, and apparently we can't even get that information from the Appropriations Committee. So I would submit that this is what this process is about. This is why we come to the floor. This is why we invite the sponsor of the earmark to defend the earmark. But I would say again, does this center exist? Do we even know if it exists? How do we know if it's a good center or a bad center? Is this Concurrent Technology, which already receives millions and millions of dollars in other bills, worthy of another earmark to create another center? These are the questions that we have to ask. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Does that center currently exist?

Mr. FLAKE. I'm wondering, in the report that accompanied the bill, it mentioned that the earmark was to go to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, but the certification letter says that it's going to go to that but the earmark should actually go to Concurrent Technology Corporation. Which is it?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Pastor, and I know of his concern for education and his commitment there. The point I would make again is there are many valuable programs out there. There are thousands and thousands of community colleges out there. I would think that we simply have to stop saying all right, we are going to fund this one or we are going to fund that one without some kind of criteria that should be set by somebody else other than Members of Congress because we are in a position where it happens politically. Now that is not to say that decisions by Federal agencies aren't political. They often are. That's the responsibility of oversight, for us to step in and say you ought to have this criteria or this merit- based selection process or this competitive grant process. But for us to say we don't like the way the Federal agencies do it so we are going to do it ourselves, I would think is not the wisest course. With that, I would urge support of the amendment. We simply can't fund all of the programs, the good programs that are out there, and maintain any type of position here in Congress of being equal or being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. With that, I would urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for this wonderful amendment. I rise today out of a concern for what earmarks are doing to this body. Those of us on the Republican side understand very well the perils of unfettered earmarks. It's part of the reason we're squarely in the minority today. But there are greater concerns than which party is in the majority. I hope that each of us, Republicans and Democrats, would recognize this. Proponents of earmarking defend the practice by noting that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and that earmarking is consistent with that responsibility. It is true that Congress has the power of the purse. But the contemporary practice of earmarking circumvents, rather than enhances, the careful execution of our responsibility as stewards of the public purse. Take the Labor-HHS bill that will be coming up later today; it contains 1,300 earmarks. Are we to assume that each of these 1,300 has been properly vetted and scrubbed? No way. I suspect that, just as the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee noted a couple of weeks ago, there is no way to adequately screen these earmarks given the tight appropriations schedule. The question needs to be asked, why are we so bent on moving forward with 1,300 earmarks? I should note that last year there were no House earmarks in the Labor-HHS bill. The world didn't come crashing to a halt. The year before there were no House earmarks in the Labor-H bill. The planets are still in order today. Why are we so bent on moving forward when we can't adequately vet these earmarks? Perhaps the most frequent justification for the contemporary practice of earmarking is that ``Members of Congress know their districts better than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington.'' Now, I'm not here to defend faceless bureaucrats. They waste a lot of money in my district, as well as others. Faceless bureaucrats in Federal agencies waste so much money that somebody needs to be constantly looking over their shoulder and providing oversight. That's why we're here. But let's face it, when we approve congressional earmarking for indoor rain forests in Iowa or teapot museums in North Carolina, we make the most spendthrift faceless bureaucrats look frugal. Excess by Federal agencies does not excuse congressional excess. If Federal agencies don't follow the procedures requiring competitive bidding or other processes, then we should cut their funding and/or mandate that they change their practice. We shouldn't try to one-up them with equally suspect appropriations. Just as an aside, we saw just a couple of weeks ago that the majority of this Chamber chose to deny funding for one particular earmark. Now, for the Record, it was my amendment to cut funding for the ``Perfect Christmas Tree Project.'' There was no Federal nexus, and I didn't think it was a wise use of Federal dollars. But it was no less worthy than hundreds of projects funded by the same legislation. The distribution of earmarks is based on politics, not policy. Most appropriation bills award 60 percent of the earmarks to the majority party and 40 percent to the minority party. Is there a policy reason for this allocation that has reversed with every legislation? Are well- positioned Members who award themselves with more earmarks than rank- and-file Members more deserving? Are their districts more needy? In some appropriation bills, each member of the committee is given an equal share. Are we to assume here that these districts have exactly the same needs? The truth is, we can try all we want to to conjure up some noble pedigree for the contemporary practice of earmarking, but we are just drinking our own bath water if we think the public is buying it. It seems that over the past few years we've tried to increase the number of earmarks enough so that the plaudits we hear from earmark recipients will drown out the voices of taxpayers who have had enough. It hasn't worked, thank goodness. For every group that directly benefits from earmarks, there are hundreds who see it as a transparent gimmick to assure our own reelection. Mr. Chairman, our constituents deserve better. This institution deserves better than we're giving it. Let's return to the time-honored process of authorization, appropriation and oversight that has served us well for so long.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. To hear this discussion, one would think we were funding the Marines somehow here. We are not. We are not. We are funding, according to the certification letter, ``Funding is to be used for enhancing the Barracks Row Corridor by redeveloping the Eastern Market Metro Plaza.'' This is a commercial development, a commercial venture. Home and retail properties in this area have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. The American way is to leverage the equity you have, either in your business or your home, and redevelop the area. That is how every other area in the country does it, almost all without Federal help. Just because it is here, and I would like to get there and watch the Marines march, but let me say again, this has nothing to do with the Marines marching in Barracks Row. This has to do with subsidizing a commercial enterprise, one that could do just fine on its own, and particularly in this area. I couldn't think of buying in that area. It is far too expensive. I appreciate the notion of helping out and the sentimentality of Marines marching, and all of us want to help the armed services, but that is not what this is about. This is about subsidizing a commercial venture, and it is not something we should be involved in in this instance. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman whose earmark this is. And I also have great fear. I stood in left field when he was at the plate earlier this week in the congressional baseball game, and I'm glad that I didn't have to experience anything hit out there. But I would simply make the case again. The gentleman mentioned that small business makes up 95 percent of all business starts out there. And I would submit that 99 percent of those do it without any help from the Federal Government at all. And when the Federal Government does put money out there, I mean, 95 percent, I don't know what percentage but an overwhelming percentage, certainly, without earmark help. But when we do this kind of earmark, we simply pick winners and losers out there. Certain sets of businesses, certain industries, certain individual businesses are helped when others are at a disadvantage because they don't receive that kind of help. So I would simply say that we shouldn't be doing this as the Federal Government when we have such demand on our scarce budget here for other purposes. And we shouldn't be earmarking for this kind of purpose.

Mr. FLAKE. May I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I have been called many things during this effort to shine the light on some Federal earmarks and to try to promote a little accountability. I am prepared after this amendment to answer to the name ``Grinch'' and head back up to my mountain just north of Who-ville. This amendment would prevent $129,000 from being used by the Mitchell County Development Foundation for the Home for the Perfect Christmas Tree Project. The Mitchell County Development Foundation is a nonprofit dedicated to creating jobs and strengthening the educational system, as well as promoting tourism in Mitchell County. It has been reported that the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project is an economic development initiative in economically distressed Mitchell County. According to the project's Web site, author Gloria Houston gave the rights to her award-winning children's book, ``The Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree,'' to the town of Spruce Pine, North Carolina, in 2003. To help with the economic challenges facing the region following the loss of manufacturing jobs, the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project was created to assist entrepreneurs selling handmade crafts and products based on the book. The money included in this earmark would go towards doubling the retail space available for the gift shop selling products like Christmas tree ornaments, lanterns, handmade soaps, et cetera. I have no doubt that Mitchell County is having tough times economically. I don't belittle that fact. It sounds like they are. And I don't dispute the fact that they may be home to the perfect Christmas tree either, although Arizona has some very nice ones. What I do doubt is that there is a Federal role here in doling out funds to the Mitchell County Development Foundation. First, from the sponsor's certification letter, we learn that these funds are requested because the project is expected to double to include 60 licensed product makers in 2007. If this project is successful, does it still need taxpayer assistance? Additionally, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service, there are nearly 400 persistently poor counties in the U.S. These are counties with 20 percent or more of their populations living in poverty for the last 30 years. These counties comprise 12 percent of U.S. counties and 4 percent of the population. Are we to assume that the taxpayers should dig into their wallets and find ways of providing hundreds of thousands of dollars for each of these counties as a means of dealing with economic hardship? We simply can't do that. We simply can't cure every ill out there. I would submit it is often said that this bill has become a Christmas tree. Unfortunately, this bill has a Christmas tree. I would think it is simply not a good use of taxpayer dollars. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. That sponsor is Mr. Murtha?

Mr. FLAKE. According to the certification letter released, it is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. As I mentioned, this is the second year that I have challenged the same earmark. This is an earmark that begets earmarks. This is going to a business organization whose job it is to receive other Federal moneys. There have been many stories written over the past several weeks about organizations like this that exist to draw other Federal moneys. I don't think that you can put it in terms of this Member knows that district and is trying to alleviate poverty or a situation like that. This is a situation, it seems to me, where earmarks are begetting more earmarks. We simply can't sustain that. With the deficit that we have, with the situation we are in with the Federal Government, we can't sustain doing this for much longer. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.