Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have three amendments that have not been voted on yet, so I invite the gentleman to support them.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real test here. We all campaign every 2 years, and we put out campaign literature. We go speak at town halls and other events. And I would venture to guess that not one person in this body said, Reelect me because we need to spend more on Interior appropriations. We need to spend more. We need to spend 4 percent more than we did last year. I am going to go back to Washington and spend $1.2 billion more than we did last year. I venture that nobody said that. Virtually everybody said we need to rein in spending. We need to promote fiscal responsibility. I am the first to concede we didn't do a good job of it over here. For the past several years we have grown government far too big. That is part of the reason we are now in the minority. But the majority comes now and says, don't lecture us, we are going to increase that spending. This bill spends $1.2 billion more than last year. Last year spent too much. This year spends too much too much again. So, please, we know we did wrong. That is why we are in the minority. But when you are in the majority now, let's exercise some fiscal discipline. There are plenty of areas that can receive cuts. We have outlined several of them over the past several hours with amendments. Museum funding, part of the reason the gentleman from New Mexico mentioned that we have a backlog at the National Parks, he is right. But yet in the authorizing committee, we have created several more National Heritage Areas and earmarked a lot more money for them. There are earmarks in this bill for National Heritage Areas. That is money that will come out of the National Parks budget. They will tell you if you spend money here on this new area, this National Heritage Area, you can't spend money maintaining the parks that we already have. Many of us have fought to stop that. We have said don't keep creating these National Heritage Areas. Yet with the new majority, we are creating them at a faster rate than we ever have. I would say, let's promote fiscal discipline. Let's pass this amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I don't doubt that it was funded in the previous Congress. The question is with economic development. It is said that this helps promote tourism. It helps development. No doubt. You cannot spend money without creating economic activity by its very nature. But if we take economic development as the criteria, what project anywhere in the country is not worthy of that? And why is this project and all of these entities created, and I quote again from their own Web site. The commission Web site says: ``This organization created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, new businesses,'' many of which are also eligible for earmark funding.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. If the gentleman will indulge me, I am still confused, maybe even further now. Looking at the list, it says here, Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, $1.2 million, and the sponsor is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Who is the sponsor?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from going to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. This is one of the most expensive earmarks in the bill. The commission is to receive an earmark of $1.2 million. The Web site for this commission states that the southwestern region of Pennsylvania was hard hit when a lot of manufacturing jobs left the region. The Web site also states that it was a ``tough transition for hundreds of steelworkers, coal miners, railroaders and other workers who now find themselves without a job.'' I certainly, and any Member in this body, can sympathize with in their own district. But the Web site goes on to say that ``An idea emerged that the very industries that were struggling in the 1980's had transformed America once before. Could the proud history of southwestern Pennsylvania once again lead America through the next economic transition? With that, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission was born.'' A bill creating the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route, or Path to Progress National Heritage Area, was approved in Congress in 1988. The heritage area is managed by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. If this is confusing to listeners, it is to all of us. The Commission's Web site states that the law created the new heritage area to ``make it possible for millions of Federal dollars to flow into southwestern Pennsylvania.'' No doubt. All of these funds are to be managed by the Commission. The Commission's Web site states the Commission has ``created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, and new businesses.'' No doubt. The site goes on to explain that the committee ``spent money, borrowed money, loaned money, earned money, granted money, and accepted money.'' Nobody doubts that either. The Web site explains that the Commission legislative mandate was renewed by Congress and it was to begin transferring its responsibilities to a public foundation. I quote, ``several entities were created by the commission to achieve this--the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation which then evolved in the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation and the Progress Fund, which would serve as a Community Development Financial Institution, providing gap and equity financing to an increasing number of tourism-oriented businesses.'' I should note that I have added language in this amendment to prevent Federal funding from going to the other two nonprofit entities that were created by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission. My point in offering this amendment is to highlight the concept of earmark incubators, or entities created by Members of Congress through the legislative process that exist for the sole purpose of receiving more earmarks. In this case, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission seems to be just that, an earmark incubator. It has spawned at least two other nonprofit entities, each with the sole purpose of fostering economic growth and tourism development in southwestern Pennsylvania with Federal taxpayer dollars. It is no surprise that the CEO of the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation is also the executive director of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. He is also a former Interior Department employee of 32 years. Keeping track of all these entities that have been created based on this one national heritage area almost boggles the mind. The point of this amendment is to prevent funding from going to one entity, you have to go after all three. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I will simply make the point, this sounds like a great gallery, a lot of history, certainly something that tourism and other things can pay for, that can carry its own load locally. Why do we need the Federal Government to be involved, that is my question. Given the priorities and the situation we are in with the Federal Government, the last time I checked we were some $8 trillion in debt, why are we doing this? Where does it end? When do we say enough is enough? We can't afford to fund projects like this around the country that have a local program that can support it. We simply can't go on doing this. That is the point that I would like to make. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any of the funds in the bill from going to the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian College at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The certification letter submitted by the Member sponsoring the project stated the money would go to the restoration and preservation of the Payne Art Gallery at the college. The funding would be used for exterior restoration, rehabilitation, and conservation of Payne Gallery. Payne Art Gallery is a small art gallery at a college. The college underwent a renovation in 2001 to achieve Smithsonian exhibit standards. It currently hosts about five to six exhibits a year. This small art gallery is to receive $150,000 in Federal funding from the U.S. taxpayer. Again, I would simply ask, there are a lot of small colleges around the country, hundreds of them, thousands of them. Many have art galleries. Where do we say this is worthy and this is not? Why are we using U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars for this purpose when we are in the fix that we are in financially? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Will the gentlelady yield, since I am out of time?

Mr. FLAKE. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. I brought with me today a stack of Congressional Records. All of us are familiar with these. We used to use them quite a bit, but today not so much. Today most of us just simply go on the computer and have a searchable version that is much faster, searchable back to 1989. With the click of a button, you can find what you are looking for. So we don't use these as much. Unfortunately, we haven't caught up with the times. These are just a few of the thousands and thousands that are delivered that are never read. This was just from one office, the Legislative Research Center in the Cannon Building near my office. These are those that are just going to be thrown away today. One office that collects a few of these will throw these away just today. This year alone these records will cost the American taxpayer over $25 million. Recently my office did an informal survey of about 100 offices. We went in and said, ``What do you do with the Congressional Record that comes?'' Virtually all of them, nearly every one of those 100 offices, said, ``We throw them away. We wish they would stop delivering them.'' We had some offices say that they had requested that they stop being delivered. They are still delivered. So they stack up. They are thrown away. They fill up landfills. I believe the figure is something like 57 tons of paper each year are thrown away just here. Before the Congressional Record was put on line, as I mentioned, they were useful, but they are not now. We obviously do have to have some paper copies. We simply don't need so many. Our amendment would simply do this, and I should add, this amendment was offered by myself and Mr. Blumenauer 2 years ago and was accepted by the then majority. It was simply taken out in the conference. I think we would do well to accept it again today. This amendment would simply save $3.2 million annually by instructing the Government Printing Office to print only half as many copies. Today only 5,600 are printed. Half would do us just fine. That amendment would not reduce the funding for preparation, data collection or other aspects of the Record. It would simply reduce the ink-and-paper copies for half of what we print. So those who might oppose this amendment might say that it is going to cut deep and cut personal and others. It won't as long as fewer records are printed. The costs will go down. This is simply a good way to save taxpayer money. It will show the country that we are interested ourselves in cleaning up our own house, making sure that we move ahead in a fiscally responsible manner.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Thank you. I appreciate the courtesy. Let me point out, just as with any program that is not an entitlement, everything is subject to appropriation. The Government Printing Office is not bound, no pun intended, to print as many copies as they think they need. They can print as many as they have money for. We were very careful in taking $3.2 million, to take only the printing costs for half of the number that are printed already. I think that is reasonable.

Mr. FLAKE. Before yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon, let me point out, here is the Code. The Code states that we are supposed to print 30,000 a day, yet we only print 5,600. So, it is not the case that the GPO has to follow what the statute says. They are required to do by demand. And they already do under; they can simply do less and save a lot of money. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Yes. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I recognize that a point of order has been lodged and will prevail, and I will withdraw this. But let me just make the point here. This bill, like previous years' bills making appropriations for the State Department and for foreign operations, doesn't include earmarks in the traditional sense. In other words, it doesn't direct agencies to fund specific programs for parochial interests. However, the report accompanying the bill makes reference to several nongovernmental organizations by name. I think it is most accurate to refer to these as ``soft earmarks.'' Scattered throughout the report is language which reads as follows: ``The committee is aware of the work of,'' and you can insert your favorite organization here, ``and encourages USAID to consider supporting such work in fiscal year 2008.'' I would suppose that, given the agencies we are funding, some of these NGOs are based overseas or are international organizations, and I have no doubt that many of them are doing good work. But why are they any more worthy than the hundreds of other organizations that are not named? My amendment does not strike funding for any NGO. Rather, it simply would remove any funding preference for any of the organizations that are listed in the bill over organizations that are not listed in the bill. This amendment simply would prevent funding from going to any of these organizations outside of a competitive bidding process. With the efforts to shine more light on the earmarking process, I am concerned that we might see increasingly creative ways to steer funding to recipients of funding that Members of Congress want to see it go to. I would like to know how these organizations managed to get mentioned by those named in the report. Who made these requests? Was it the administration? Was it Members of Congress? Was it the committee as a whole? Or the organizations themselves? Will the committee disclose this kind of information? Are these agencies going to be under any undue pressure to give preference to these organizations? Will there be any accounting for whether they have received funding or whether they had gone through a fair bidding process? Are we going to see similar soft earmarking in the future now that there is a brighter spotlight on earmarking in Congress? I would welcome any answers to this question now or I would like to work with the committee to understand the rationale for this type of soft earmarking. With that, unless the chairwoman would explain this or enlighten me as to what these soft earmarks are doing or how they come about, I would be glad to withdraw this amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. The speaker just said that unless we have this amendment, this program will be gutted. The truth is the committee keeps the funding level as it is, and I think given the GAO report, that is only proper. As my colleagues have already mentioned, the GAO report that was commissioned by myself and Congressman Delahunt noted that there were items purchased with the money that is supposed to go to dissidents in Cuba: a gas chainsaw, Game Boys, PlayStations, a mountain bike, leather coats, cashmere sweaters. How is that going to help the dissident community in Cuba? I would submit not very much. But yet the same ones who support increasing this funding by five times also will not support allowing individuals to visit their own family members in Cuba and take toothpaste or clothing items or even to take a fishing poll so that poor Cubans might supplement their meager diets. That, according to the group that wants to increase funding here, should be outlawed. We should continue to outlaw that but increase taxpayer funding for a program that the GAO says there was intense mismanagement, cronyism. A scathing report that came out: lack of bank reconciliations, lack of documentation to determine compliance with cost-sharing requirements, questionable travel expenses lacking adequate documentation, questionable expenses paid to family members of a grantee manager, hundreds of dollars of petty cash observed in the grantee's office that was not controlled or properly cured. This is not a good amendment. If you believe in fiscal sanity, please defeat the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Duly recognized. I think that it argues for far fewer earmarks. You made a comment last year that I agreed to.