Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would prevent the Barracks Row Main Street Organization from receiving $.5 million. The certification letter provided by the sponsor of this earmark indicates that these funds will be used to redevelop the Eastern Market Metro Plaza and the triangle park adjacent to it. This is in Washington, D.C., not far from us here on Capitol Hill. According to its Web site: ``The mission of Barracks Row Main Street is to revitalize 8th Street Southeast as a vibrant commercial corridor reconnecting Capitol Hill to the Anacostia River using historic preservation and the arts and economic development tools.'' In case you weren't aware, Mr. Chairman, Barracks Row was the first commercial center in Washington, D.C. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson selected the site of 8th and I Streets as the first post for the Marine Corps because of its close proximity to the Navy Yard and the U.S. Capitol in case it needed protection. I sometimes wish those marines were around to protect the taxpayer here or funds from flowing from this institution. Also, according to the Barracks Row Web site, since 1999 there have been more than 50 facades restored, 40 signs replaced, 40 new businesses opened, three new buildings constructed and one streetscape reconstruction completed. All told, the total amount of public and private funds reinvested has been some $19 million. At least a portion of that $19 million has come through Federal earmarks. The 2006 Transportation appropriation bill included a $750,000 earmark for the redevelopment of Barracks Row Main Street, Inc. That was apparently the same project included in the earmark that I seek to limit today, the redevelopment of the Eastern Market Metro Plaza. I would submit that the redevelopment of the Metro Plaza would be more appropriately addressed by the authorizers. If the project were authorized, then we should allow the Transportation appropriators to do this bill. I also note that this Metro Plaza may be about to receive at least its second earmark. How many more will be required? How much longer will we be doing this? I certainly hope that we are not approving a redevelopment earmark today to redevelop last year's redevelopment earmark. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. No, I have not.

Mr. FLAKE. I may have. I don't recall.

Mr. FLAKE. I believe I have.

Mr. FLAKE. I have not.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this is another rerun amendment, because this bill contains another rerun earmark. I came last year to challenge the same earmark, and it's back. This is the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. It's located in Pomona, California, and more than one Member has been involved in the effort to secure earmark funding for this conference center. According to the Web site, ``Fairplex is home to the annual L.A. County Fair and more than 300 other events each year. Included are consumer and trade shows, meetings, expositions, conventions, inter- track wagering, sporting events and agricultural events.'' Its Web site says that Fairplex is governed by the Los Angeles County Fair Association. The association is self-supporting and does not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body. Now, Fairplex may not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body, but it has had its share of Federal funding over the years, which begs the question, is the association really self- supporting or not? With a steady stream of earmark funding for the organization, I wonder if it is really dependent on this funding. Would Fairplex or the association be able to sustain its operation without annual earmarks? If it would, why do we need to do it in that case? Why would we have an organization that's either dependent on continued earmarks or one that could exist just fine without them? Again, there are about 300 events at Fairplex every year. This year it hosted an international wine and spirits competition and an international extra virgin olive oil competition. It will have a 4th of July celebration next week. There is a Sheraton Suites hotel on the Fairplex campus. With all of these sources of income, I really doubt that Fairplex needs a stream of taxpayer dollars that have come their way virtually every year. Why, this again begs the question, why are we doing this? Why is Federal money going here for a commercial venture? What makes Los Angeles County Fairgrounds more deserving than, say, Yazoo County, Mississippi; Cook County, Illinois or Slope County, North Dakota? We certainly cannot fund every county fairground in the country. By choosing one or a few, we are picking winners and losers among them. I would appreciate an explanation as to how, out of the thousands of earmark requests that come, the committee narrows its list to a few hundred like this one in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to pay for renovations to a small business incubator at West Virginia University. Like so many of the other organizations listed in the earmark section of this bill, the purpose of this small business incubator is to promote economic development activities by supporting early stage businesses with space, facilities and support services. The West Virginia University Small Business Incubator is over 5,000 square feet of renovated space in the Chestnut Ridge Research Building on the campus of West Virginia University. The businesses that are tenants of the incubator program have access to the staff of professionals, trained interns and West Virginia University resources. Businesses receive guidance in the areas of accounting, advertising, graphic design, information technology, finance, corporate services, marketing, Web design and Web development. That's a lot of advantages they have. I simply don't believe the Federal Government needs to be in the business of helping them further or funding private companies in this way. This is a form of corporate welfare that so many Members in other settings rail against over and over again. The National Business Incubator Association is an organization that has 905 member organizations, mostly in the United States. There is certainly no reasonable argument that we should be funding all business incubators in this country. So how do we justify funding just a couple of them in this bill? How are they more deserving of the special treatment that we give them in this bill? How should I explain to the taxpayers in my district, or other districts, that they're subsidizing business development projects in West Virginia, or any other State for that matter? I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from New York, is this his earmark?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned that he heard one Senator with sun spots overheard two other Senators talking.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman. I think the spirit of Christmas seems to have broken out here, with Democrats agreeing with Republicans and dogs and cats living together and everything else. I'll probably get beat soundly on this amendment. Let me simply say in defense of the gentleman from North Carolina, we would likely not be in this situation where we're debating earmarks on the floor had he not persistently for 3 days helped in the effort to make sure that there is transparency here. And you can be for earmarks or against earmarks. But I think we ought to all be for transparency, and I think that's the message that he helped and very persuasively brought to the floor during those 3 days. I appreciate his efforts there, all for the opportunity to be flogged in this fashion. I would simply say, and, like I say, I don't want to belittle the economic problems in Mitchell County, but I should point out again there are 400 counties around the country comprising 12 percent of all U.S. counties, 4 percent of the U.S. population, that are in persistent poverty. When you pick like this, we're picking certain winners and losers who are to get Federal funding instead of recognizing that there is opportunity cost to funding as well.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would.

Mr. FLAKE. No, he wasn't from Arizona. The gentleman can be excused. He has been very busy, and I am glad he has been reading earmark request letters. There have been a lot of them, so he has been tied up. But what he missed, as the good gentleman from Indiana mentioned, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin from Illinois, not afflicted with sun spots, by the way, just yesterday said, ``It is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.'' So I don't think that we are seeing things here. There is a move afoot. Make no mistake, this is targeted at talk radios, where conservatives seem to have done a little better in the marketplace than the other side of the argument. So forgive us for being skeptical that nothing is afoot. But when the majority leader in the Senate says it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, I think we're right to be concerned.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $231,000 from going to the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, otherwise known as SPUR. This organization claims to be San Francisco's preeminent public-policy think tank and claims that through research analysis, public education and advocacy, SPUR promotes good planning and good government. The question we are asked today: Is it good government for the Federal taxpayer to be funding think tanks around the country? You can debate all day long, we only have a couple of minutes here, the merits or demerits of government planning, whether it is a good thing that the suburbs expand or that the policies that this organization promotes are better. But the question is: Should we be sending Federal taxpayer dollars to an organization with policies that run counter to what some people across the country might think? I think we should let think tanks think and produce ideas that they want, but let's not support them with Federal funds and take sides in this issue. As for the specifics of this earmark, according to the sponsor's certification letter, the funding would go towards construction costs associated with a new resource center for small business and community groups in San Francisco. The new resource center will be called the SPUR Urban Center. SPUR's Web site says, ``As we head into the next 50 years of service to San Francisco, SPUR is proposing its most innovative solution yet: Constructing an urban center, the first of its kind in any city west of Chicago. To reach this goal, SPUR is embarking on a $10 million SPUR Campaign for the Urban Center.'' I suppose this funding is meant to help that campaign to raise the $10 million necessary to build that urban center. The list of donors to this campaign is about four pages long. It includes very sizable donations from some very well-known corporations and organizations. It appears to me and to anyone who reads or looks at the Web site that this fundraising campaign is going fairly well. Why again are we putting taxpayers on the hook to help with this effort? The organization and center look to have a local focus and policy approaches that too many taxpayers from across the country might have reservations about. Now, I am familiar with the think tank world. Before coming to Congress, I spent 7 years at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. I suppose that there are a lot of people here who would be uncomfortable with the positions that the Goldwater Institute took. I would not presume to get Federal funding for the think tank that I used to work for or any other conservative think tank. That wouldn't be right. I don't think it is right here for any Member to seek money for a think tank at home that might or might not produce ideas that run counter or might be supported by Members here. Think tanks should think on their own without support from the Federal Government in this instance. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity we have. For a while it looked like we might not have this opportunity, so I do appreciate being able to challenge these earmarks on the House floor. As rank-and-file Members, we are able to see certification letters that have been submitted by the requesting Member to the Appropriations Committee. I should point out again, as I did yesterday, we were unable to see the actual request letter, so there is limited information that we have available on these earmarks and what they're for, but there are some that we're able to glean. Let me just talk about this one a little. This one I actually challenged last year. That's part of the reason I'm coming again is this seems to be an earmark that just keeps coming up again and again for an organization that seems to exist only on earmarks. This particular amendment would prohibit funding for the Johnstown Area Regional Industries, or JARI, Incubator and Workforce Development Program. Now, I don't know the specifics of the history of JARI, how it was started, I do know, however, that it has received several earmarks over the years. I also know, among other things, JARI helps companies obtain government funding. Its Web site says, ``JARI's Procurement Technical Assistance Center provides an array of services to assist companies in securing Federal, State and local government contracts and subcontracts.'' So, in essence, what we're doing is sending Federal money to an organization, who then turns around with that money and seeks additional Federal money. I'm just wondering where this stops. How many of these organizations can we fund? This is not the only organization of its kind, and that's partly what worries me here. We're finding dozens and dozens of organizations like this increasingly over the past couple of years that have been organized and created to secure additional Federal funding. These are earmarks that beget earmarks. These are earmarks incubators. And I don't know how much we can stand of this because the more we have out there, the more it seems to simply spawn other earmarks. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. For the record, I believe this is the Speaker's earmark. It would have been nice to have a colloquy like we were having on this earmark with the sponsor of the earmark. That is what would be nice about this process, if we could actually have the sponsor of the earmark come and explain it. I would like to know, for example, taking the example that the gentleman gave that I seem to be willing to let the Federal Government, the agencies, go ahead and spend this money, I would be upset if the Federal agencies designated this themselves. They shouldn't give out money like this. If the Federal agencies responsible for disbursing this kind of money gave money to the Goldwater Institute, I would expect the gentleman and everybody else to say that is not a proper use of money. I would do that if it was put in by a Member as well. It is not who spends the money; it is whether this money should be spent by the Federal Government. I am not defending the Bush administration's spending of money that is earmarked. I have noted many times that much of the money in the Homeland Security bill that is spent in my district is not a wise use of Federal taxpayer dollars. It shouldn't be spent. The question is not who spends it. We shouldn't use that as an excuse saying that the Federal agencies will misspend the money, so we have a right to do that as well. We have a right to misspend that money and designate think tanks who should receive it just because they might do the same thing over there. Our role is to authorize, appropriate, and conduct oversight. My issue is that we have done far too little authorizing, far too much appropriating, and far too little oversight. Oversight needs to be done. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. The sponsor of the earmark is not here to defend the earmark today?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy debating my good friend from New York. My good friend from New York made a point when I challenged one of his earmarks last year that his district has one of the highest poverty rates, or it is number one in the country. Here I have a map. The red areas show those counties in the country that have experienced persistent poverty over the past 30 years. I should note that virtually all of the earmarks I will be challenging today are not in areas that are covered in the red, certainly not the one in western Pennsylvania today. This is not an area of persistent poverty. This is not an area where we are going in and helping the truly less fortunate. The gentleman is correct that Members of Congress are, by and large, intelligent. They know how to work the system. I would submit that that is exactly what this is about. When you get an earmark that begets other earmarks, when you are funding organizations set up with the express purpose of getting other Federal moneys or other earmarks, there is something wrong with that picture. There is something wrong with that. Where does that end? That is simply not right. I would ask the gentleman, this is not the gentleman's earmark. Is the sponsor of the earmark not here to defend the earmark today?