Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. I have great respect for the gentlelady, as she knows. This is just one of many projects like this. Mr. Chairman, again, I would simply make the point that the gentlelady mentioned, that there are millions and millions and millions of dollars contributed by State and local governments to this effort. There are millions of dollars that come in commercial transactions of conferences that are presented. This is simply $250,000. Why are we doing it at all? It clearly isn't dependent on the $250,000, I believe. Last year, because we didn't do earmarks in many of these bills, it didn't receive the funding. It's still up and going just fine. The question is why do we do this? Why does the committee feel it proper to actually designate funding for something like this when we have such dire needs elsewhere in the Federal budget? That's what we are here for today. That's why we are challenging earmarks like this, particularly with this bill. This bill, with financial services, in my view, it's kind of the soft underbelly of the earmarking world, where you have economic development earmarks, that you can justify economic development anywhere in the country. Spending money, by its very nature, generates economic activity. So you could justify any earmark anywhere if you simply say it generates economic activity, it's important to my district. But when we do it in this fashion, we simply pick winners and losers out there. I wouldn't think that's our place.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit $231,000 for Advantage West Economic Development Group, that's the Certified Entrepreneurial Community Program. Many of the earmarks in this bill are for economic development organizations, business incubators, workforce development programs and the like. But just because there are hundreds of similar earmarks in this bill doesn't mean that providing this kind of earmark for economic development is okay. In doing research on the different earmarks, many of them begin to sound very much alike. But this one, the Advantage West Economic Development Group stood apart. Its list of corporate sponsors reads like the ``who's who'' list of influential and well-heeled entities, Bankers Branch & Trust, BellSouth, Duke Energy, Grant Thornton, Qualcomm, Spring, UBS, Verizon, Wachovia and other well-known corporations. The listed funding partners are a very recognizable list as well, at least in Washington: the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Endowment of the Arts, the U.S. Department of Commerce and, of course, through the virtue of this earmark, the U.S. Congress. The Advantage West Economic Development Group Web site boasts that publications such as Money, Kiplinger's, Outside, American Style, Modern Maturity and Forbes have ranked western North Carolina as a top destination for living, working, recreation, arts, technology and retirement. That's pretty nice advertisement. The group highlights the following among other achievements, this group receiving the earmark by the way. During 2005, 2006 the Advantage West Economic Development Group's efforts in the advanced manufacturing sector contributed to economic development announcements of 2,345 new jobs and $902.5 million in capital investments. That's a lot of money. And they do pretty well here. The group helped increase the economic impact of tourism in western North Carolina 53 percent since 1995. I would simply make the point, why in the world, with a group with these kinds of backers in the private sector, does the Federal taxpayer need to turn around and spend $231,000 of taxpayer dollars? As I mentioned, there is opportunity cost when you take this money out of the hands of individual taxpayers, send it to Washington, and then let Washington decide who are the winners and who are the losers, who will receive these kinds of economic development earmarks. That's not a very efficient way to distribute money for capital investment. I am glad the sponsor of the earmark is here. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, again let me just make the point again that there are too many earmarks in this bill that are for business incubators. There are really in many cases earmark incubators. These are earmarks that beget other earmarks. Many are going to organizations that receive additional earmarks or are there for the purpose of receiving additional earmarks. This is one business incubator, and there are hundreds and hundreds of business incubators, 905 in the association. How do we choose to fund just this one? We are picking winners and losers here. We are deciding who is worthy and who is not, and I simply don't think that is fair. It is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars. This business incubator, given the other partners involved, it seems it would be fine without Federal involvement. And I think that we should test that proposition and not fund this earmark. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. How much time is remaining?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding in the bill from going to the Philadelphia Art Museum for their exterior facade work. The Philadelphia Art Museum is receiving $100,000 in taxpayer funds in this bill. The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee in this project is a little vague again. It simply states that the money is to be used for a comprehensive exterior renovation and preservation project of the main building historic facade. I should note again the certification letters that we get as Members tell us a lot less than the actual request letters do. That certainly is the case here. When my staff looked at the museum Web site, it is clear that the museum has plans for expansion by creating a ``skylit galleria, a spacious gallery extending along Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia.'' The skylit galleria would be some 35 feet high, 200 feet long, and join the lobby and new cafe. The Web site says that with its terrazzo floor and tilted corbelled wall, this new space connects the old building to the new extension along the length of the preexisting north exterior facade. I understand the main building is historic. But the question is, if the certification letter says it is for the historic facade and you are talking about flooring and other things, it seems to me that the money is going to the new extension. Again, I would simply make the same point here that I have made before. There are a lot of worthy projects. Certainly renovation and historic preservation is a good thing and a lot of good people contribute their own money to it, as they should. But the question is, should Federal taxpayer dollars be used in this way, particularly given the financial situation we are in as a Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. So not to the new expansion.

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentleman would explain, I am still a little confused. The earmark states it is for Philadelphia Art Museum exterior facade, but then we are talking about an extension or expansion as well. Is this for the historic facade or for an expansion?

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Maybe that's safer. What I would like to ask, for example, I mention that this foundry is only open 2 days a year. It has been open for private tours for quite a while for a number of years. There is no indication with this earmark, certainly because we don't get the request letter, we only get the certification letter, that it will be open for any more than that. And I don't know about you, but it's a tough sell. I can tell you, I have five kids. It would be tough to say, Do you want to go to Disneyland or W.A. Young & Sons Foundry? I can see why anybody would want an earmark to renovate something or to promote tourism in a particular area, but virtually every district in the country would like that as well. How do we decide this one is worthy and this one is not? Just because we have a Member who is a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or not. We shouldn't be doing it this way. The gentleman made a good point, that the President has his own earmarks. The administration does earmark funds, but it's typically with accounts that we've given them. We say, here's an amount of money and for this program. For example, there is the Save America's Treasures account that the President, or the administration through a competitive grant process, decides this site is worthy of historic preservation or worthy of receiving funds. What we're doing with earmarking frequently is circumventing that process and saying, I don't think they're going to do it right, so I'm just going to earmark my own project and get that funding for my own project. That's no way to do business. If we don't like the way the administration is doing something, that's what the oversight process is about, and we should go back in and stipulate and mandate. I have mentioned many times, particularly with Homeland Security grants, there are projects in my own district that I think are a waste of Federal taxpayer dollars or not an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars, and I would like to go in. And I will, through this process, if I can, seek to strike some of the President's own requests. We should be doing that. But we shouldn't say because they do it and because they misuse Federal taxpayer dollars that we should as well. That's not what our power of the purse should be about. So that's why we're here today, to say what is an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Is it appropriate, in this case, and we can talk about what the Republicans did versus what the Democrats did. You won't find me defending what Republicans did in terms of ramping up earmarks. We went from some 1,400 to 14,000 over a decade, and it's a pox on our House. It's part of the reason I think we lost in November. I hope the minority, now majority learn a lesson from us. I am glad to see the number of earmarks and the whole dollar value come down, but it should come down much lower. We not only need to change the level of spending, but the type of spending as well. And with earmarking, it was way out of control. It's still out of control with this legislation, in my view.

Mr. FLAKE. Yes, I would.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad to learn that. That will make it much better. It's much better to have more of a colloquy. I would have liked to have had a colloquy with the sponsor of the earmark, but the sponsor of the earmark is not here. It makes it difficult to know exactly what this is for.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair for recognition. This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County, Pennsylvania.'' The three-sentence certification letter for this project states that the purpose for this funding is to restore the machine shop at the foundry to its original likeness. Once again, it's important to note that the certification letters that we get from the Appropriations Committee are not the request letters that Members give to the Appropriations Committee to request their earmark. So we really don't know all that much about what the earmarks are for, other than a three-sentence or a four-sentence certification letter. So I would have hoped to have had more information, but we were unable to get from the Appropriations Committee the actual request letters. So we are at a bit of a loss to find out what the earmark is really for, but we did our best to do a little research. The W.A. Foundry is a factory that opened in 1900 and closed in 1965. The Web site that we found claimed that the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry is a prime example of America's industrial heritage. My question for the sponsor of the earmark would be: What factory in the United States would not be a prime example of America's industrial heritage? That's the problem that I think we have with a lot of these earmarks, particularly those that are to promote tourism or industry. How do you choose winners and losers in this game? How do we say, well, hey, this old factory is deserving of renovation, is deserving to draw tourists and is deserving of taxpayer dollars, while that one down the road is not? It seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on one, perhaps, powerful Member of Congress who is able to slip in a provision to get an earmark. It doesn't seem to be very fair to other Members or to the taxpayers as a whole. Furthermore, if any of our constituents who may want to take their families on a tour of America's industrial heritage, for any of them, for wanting to, they may have a hard time getting to see the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry. It's only open for the public 2 days a year, just 2 days a year. $150,000 to the taxpayer for 2 days a year open to the public. Other than that, you will have to get a private tour. I simply don't understand why we are spending taxpayer money to promote tourism, why we choose one group over another, why we are picking winners and losers here. That's what I would ask the sponsor of the earmark if the sponsor of the earmark is here. I don't believe that he is, but I would be glad to hear some answers to these questions. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. That is understood. There are a lot of State and local governments everywhere, I would submit, that would like to have this kind of participation. But we simply can't do it. We simply cannot fund every project out there. So it seems to me that if we are going to have a project, or we are going to have an account that we set up with the Federal agency, we allow that to take its course. If we don't like the way it is run, it is our obligation as Members of Congress to stipulate that it should be done differently. But we shouldn't go in and circumvent that process and say, all right, I am going to earmark these projects because I fear that they might not receive designation or they might not be chosen by this Federal agency. If we don't like how that is set up, let's change that process. But let's not move in, as Members of Congress, and designate specific funds. I have a lot of respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio and count her as a friend. I am not questioning anything here but the wisdom of using Federal taxpayer money to do this type of thing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Let me just say, again, the gentlewoman mentioned that we have this program for historic preservation, the Saving America's Treasures, and that it is tough to get on the list for that. As I understand it, grants are given out and those grants are announced in late summer. If you receive one of those grants, then you are named an historic site or an official recipient. You can also make a contribution. If you are a local entity looking to have your own facility designated, you can make a contribution to Save America's Treasures and earmark that for the project that you want it to go to. There are other ways to receive recognition. It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the local entities to bear responsibility for this and not the Federal Government.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Is there another firefighters' museum in Columbus?

Mr. FLAKE. If the gentlewoman will respond, I have a question. The earmark states that it is for Firefighter's Hall in Columbus, but the certification letter says the money is to go to the firefighters' union. Why does the union get the money?

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman. This amendment would prohibit funding from going to the Columbus Firefighters Union, which is an AFL-CIO-affiliated union. The certification letter for this project is quite vague. Remember that these are not request letters, so we don't know a lot about these earmarks. These are only certifications that are made, usually three or four sentences long. The certification letter says that the earmark money is for the Columbus Firefighters Hall. The letter also states that the entity to receive this funding is the Columbus Firefighters Union. The earmark list accompanying the bill calls the project ``Firefighters Hall.'' According to the certification, the funding would be used to renovate and expand the Toledo & Ohio Railway Depot. Suffice to say, this information wasn't much to go on to learn about the earmark, so I had my staff e-mail the Appropriations Committee for further details, which they did provide. The committee informed us that the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway station at 379 West Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio is the largest remaining 19th century railroad palace in central Ohio. Today it serves as local headquarters for the Volunteers of America, a national organization with a variety of charitable and service programs. The committee also stated that the depot has been adapted to serve the modern needs of the Volunteers of America, while also preserving much of the 100-year-old architecture. The decorative ``grand lobby'' may be rented for parties, receptions and meetings. It's a little unclear whether this is to renovate an old building. It seems to me there are already tenants in the building. And one of the tenants in the building I believe will be, or the entity that is receiving the earmark to renovate is the AFL-CIO-affiliated Firefighters Union Local 67. Again, this is a question of there are a lot of firefighters halls around the country, there are a lot of buildings that need to be renovated. We give the administration money under programs to allocate on a competitive basis to do historic preservation. This, seems to me, is circumventing that process again. And again, why is it proper to say that this one is worthy of funding and this one isn't? With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.