Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a question, and I would like to yield to the gentleman to answer. Is this the same council that received the earmark last year, just for my clarification?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman and for the gentleman who spoke, and I appreciate their efforts on behalf of this initiative. But, again, I have to say, where does it end? Where does it end when we say, this group, this organization, this facility is worthy of Federal dollars, and another is not? It simply isn't fair to continue to give earmarks like this in this manner. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to point out that unless the gentleman who defended the earmark is the author of the earmark, and I don't believe that he is, this is an earmark in Pennsylvania. We still don't know who authored the earmark. There is nothing in the conference report that tells us, and we still don't know. Here we are about to vote on it, and we still don't know and we haven't had a defense of that earmark from the author of it, from the Member who authored it. There is something wrong with the process when this is what we are reduced to. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $900,000 in Federal funds from being used by Fairmont State University in West Virginia for a small business initiative. Fairmont State University is located in Fairmont, the county seat of Marion County, which has a population of 20,000 and is located in north central West Virginia. Similar to other earmarks I have challenged in this appropriations season, this earmark is vague in its description, offering no more than a general sketch of the purpose of the funding and making true oversight nearly impossible. In addition, this is not the first earmark to benefit the school. In recent years, Fairmont State University and its partners have regularly benefited from earmarks in this appropriation bill. For example, the 2005 Justice Department budget included a grant for nearly half a million dollars for the Fairmont State partner program looking at decoding criminal digital documents. Similarly, the 2006 SSJC appropriation bill included over $2 million in earmarks assisting the school's aviation program and aerospace curriculum. And I guess the third time is the charm. We are likely to continue this trend in 2007 with an earmark for $900,000 for a small business development initiative. In fact, according to some estimates, northern West Virginia has received more than $480 million in earmarks in various appropriation bills over the last 10 years. This earmark illustrates the problem with earmarks. Year after year, we approve these vaguely described projects by the thousands. Not only do taxpayers not know how the money is being spent, the current earmark process makes those types of patterns, the same area benefiting time and time again at the taxpayers' expense, difficult if not impossible to detect. My question is, where does it end? Where does Congress start to say enough is enough and add accountability and transparency to this runaway train that earmarks have become? If not with earmarks like this, then I do not know when. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, all of the descriptions of Arizona make it sound like Shangri-La, that everything is going so well in Arizona that we have no need for any help with the economy or any sector of the economy. That is simply not the case. We are experiencing rapid growth. There are a lot of infrastructure needs that come with that. We are experiencing transition. I grew up in northeastern Arizona. There are tremendous problems there with drought and other issues. But I would defy any Member of Congress to say that his district is not in need of something. But if we all said, all right, we are just going to get it all, get it all for our districts, circumvent the authorization appropriation oversight function that Congress has always had and simply say we are going to earmark it and use kind of a spoil system as to who gets the earmarks, then it is simply going to drain the Treasury, and it is not fair to anyone. I have universities in my district. Many of them compete for educational grants, for research grants, for other grants that are typically available in this appropriation bill and others that are being depleted. Those accounts for research funds are being depleted by earmarks. Later today I believe we will be voting on an amendment or some clarification of the TEA-LU bill to replenish a research account or some kind of research account on roads whose account was depleted because of earmarks. So people in Arizona or elsewhere are not going to receive the funding that would come by formula back to them, because of the gas taxes they paid in, because of all of the earmarking that is going on. So this is a problem. It is not a fair system. It is not a transparent system. If it were a transparent system, we would have names next to the earmarks when they come to the floor. We would have the ability to challenge it at any step. You would have language that is such that a limitation amendment could not be ruled out of order. This is not a fair process. We need to change it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, again, we all say it is our job to represent our constituents, and it certainly is. But we are in a deficit situation. We have a massive deficit and a massive Federal debt. What if every Member of Congress said, I am going to represent my constituents by getting every Federal dollar that I can back into my district, regardless of the deficit, regardless of the debt. That is pretty much where we are at right now. When you had, I think last year was $27 billion in earmarks, where does it end? When do we say enough is enough? When do we say, I am not going to pick this industry over that one? That workforce may be worthy of this kind of help, but what makes it more worthy than another one? Why do we just continue with the spoils system where if you happen to get with this group and they happen to be lucky enough to get your earmark, they get funded, but nobody else does? We simply can't continue this. I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had quite a discussion on this bill. There were efforts to move money from paying for the census, for example, to other areas of the bill or other priorities. There was a lot of talk about limited resources and the limited amount of money in this bill and the need to take money from one area to put into another. I would submit that one area that we can take some money from that is overfunded, grossly overfunded, in this bill is in some of these earmarks. Now, I will maybe highlight 10 of them today, but there are literally hundreds in the bill that we could take the money from to fund our constitutional obligation, for example, to conduct the census every 10 years. But I will start today with 250,000 for the Rochester, New York, Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program; that is an earmark. This amendment would strip that funding. The Rochester Tool and Machining Association is one chapter of a larger international tooling and machining association, which is the national representative of the custom precision manufacturing industry in the United States. They maintain a legislative alert center on their Web site so their members can lobby Congress on issues that matter to them. They also retain a lobbying firm to advance their interests with the Federal Government. It would seem that they are doing yeoman's work for their members, as is their Rochester chapter. Their Rochester chapter offers technical training and education to its members. They assert on their Web site that manufacturing job opportunities are not declining and that manufacturing accounts for 24 percent of the private sector jobs in New York State. They go on to claim that the size of the workforce is declining and that there are insufficient skilled workers to fill these available jobs, which I can only assume is what this earmark is for. What we have here is simple supply and demand, not enough skilled workers for too many jobs, an equation that is normally balanced by the free market, until this earmark. For those who buy into the idea that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to plan and shape the supply and demands of our workforce, my objection to this earmark will not resonate with you. But for those who have witnessed the profound failures of central planning in countries around the world during the 1970s and the 1980s, I hope that you will understand that this earmark is a mini-economic boost by a Federal, centralized government, to increase the supply of one industry's workers over another industry. I would submit that if there is such a demand for skilled manufacturers, as the association claims, then wages will increase, and the workforce will adapt, and they will learn ways and skills necessary to earn those wages. Let the market decide which industries succeed or fail, not politicians in Washington. I would like to hear the justification for the Federal function in this case, but then I ask, why are we picking winners and losers through the earmarking process? Why is this industry, this sector, these workers, more deserving than others? I don't think Congress should be picking favorites like this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being provided to the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism. Now, the mission of the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism is to ``increase the prosperity and population of the Oil Region'' of Pennsylvania. The point of the alliance is to ``entice people to live, work, learn and play in the valley that changed the world.'' I am certain this is an important organization to the oil region. These folks are working to ensure that the region's future is important as was its past. I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone does. Being the site of the world's first successful oil well in 1859, this area has played a crucial role in the country's history. My only question is, why should the Federal Government pay to develop this area's business and tourism? Why this area and not other areas? In April of this year, Governor Rendell congratulated the Pennsylvania tourism industry for having a record-breaking year last year. The $25 billion tourism industry sold more hotel rooms than ever before and attracted more than 130 million visitors in 2005, making Pennsylvania the fifth most visited State in the Nation. Statewide, tourism accounts for more than 400,000 jobs and is the Commonwealth's second largest industry. I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: when the Federal Government hands out earmarks like this, we are picking winners and losers. We are encouraging people to visit and to provide tourism to this area. They have to come from somewhere else. Why aren't we subsidizing those whom they choose not to go to? Where does it end? Where do we stop? Why do we simply have a spoils system where one Member of Congress can say, I am going to benefit them but not others? In this case, the oil region of Pennsylvania receives funding to attract businesses to locate in the region, to try to get families to move there and to stay, and to try to attract tourist dollars. As I mentioned, there are businesses and families and tourist dollars that won't be heading to other areas of Pennsylvania or surrounding States or anywhere else in the country. Many other localities throughout the country would like to receive as many tourism dollars as possible, but we are favoring one with this earmark. Simply put, we shouldn't be doing this. The Federal Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers like this. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for the invitation. I likely will take him up on it. Maybe I will learn to say ``prosciutto'' properly. But we simply get back to the point, where does it end? Where do we stop favoring one group, one industry over another? It is mentioned that this is a city-owned facility. Those who are residing there, who have their markets there, already received that kind of subsidy apparently from the city. Now we are going in addition and giving them further subsidy. $400,000 last year for a parking garage, $300,000 in 2004 for similar upgrades, $150,000 more today. My guess is that there are Italian eateries or restaurants or markets elsewhere in the city that are getting no subsidy at all. How is it fair to them? How is it fair to them to favor one? And I would say the same if it were in my district. It is not fair to subsidize one and not the other, and that is where we are with this earmarking process. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask Members of this body, how would you define irony? I define it as providing a Federal earmark money to the Bronx Council on the Arts, which is an entity that is advertising an event on its Web site called, Pay to Play. Pay to Play, according to the Bronx Council's Web site is ``a multimedia exhibition ala Abramoff, Scanlon, Cunningham, Halliburton and on and on and on.'' The Web site states that ``artists are asked to offer a bribe to participate in the show that will be on display alongside selected work. Please note that special consideration will be given to work that addresses corruption, greed, scandal, cover-ups, failures of democracy, the transparent veneer of public interest that masks rampant self-interest, and such other things.'' I am not saying the earmark for Bronx Council of the Arts fits any of these categories, but I am saying that it is sadly ironic that we are funding artistic parodies of congressional earmarking with earmarks. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Bronx Council for marketing local arts initiatives. My staff and I were befuddled as to what the Bronx Council originally was. It appears that a Bronx Council got money last year in the same section of the bill, but the earmark was called, ``$150,000 for the Bronx Council for the Arts for its Arts Cultural Corridor Project to promote local arts initiatives.'' So we went from Bronx Council on the Arts to just the Bronx Council. We dropped the ``Arts Cultural Corridor Project,'' and we are no longer promoting local arts, but we are marketing them. I call this the Earmark Protection Program, changing the names of earmarks to make them so vague that no one can recognize them and no amendment can be drafted to strike them. We often have trouble when we are offering these earmarks. We are told by the Parliamentarian that it has to refer to a specific facility or a specific initiative, and these earmarks this year, many of the names have been changed to be more vague, and it is difficult to know what they actually fund. As mentioned a few weeks ago, we had earmarks to simply fund a facility without reference to what that facility was. It is difficult to have amendments that are actually ruled in order to challenge them because, as the Parliamentarians will tell you, to successfully challenge an earmark, it requires an assumption that the agency that funds the earmark is familiar with the project. Otherwise, we might be legislating on an appropriation bill, which is a violation of our rules. The incentive, therefore, for Members looking to protect earmarks is to become more vague or silent about the project's goals and the project's oversight. I would submit that we should get used to more earmarks entering this protection program in the near future to prevent them from being stripped from appropriation bills. I would welcome an explanation as to what this earmark actually does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply submit that every Member of Congress in 435 districts around the country can point to at least pockets in his or her district that need help, where there is high jobless rates or where there is high crime. But where does it end? Where do we say, all right, we simply can't pass out earmarks like this and circumvent the normal authorization, appropriation, and oversight process? When does it become our job to say, all right, we are not going to go through that process and authorize these programs, appropriate and then have oversight. Instead, we are just going to slip an earmark in that we don't even know who sponsored until we offer it on the floor today. And if nobody was standing up here, we still wouldn't know. There are hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in this bill that we wouldn't even know who is offering them or what they are for because the descriptions are often so vague as to what the earmark is supposed to fund. So where does it end? Why can't every Member stand up and say, I have pockets in my district, if not my entire district, that need workforce development, that need facilities? He mentioned my district has grown 40 percent in the past couple of years. It has. It has tremendous infrastructure needs. But if I were to come and say we need all the lists that he rattled off there, then the Treasury simply couldn't handle it. We are put in this position to make decisions and to have priorities; and I would submit that when you have an earmarking process like that, we aren't going through it properly. Mr. Chairman, 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 from going to the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. Fairplex is home to the Los Angeles County Fair, the largest county fair in the world. The fair is a great asset to California, contributing a major portion of the $11.6 million in State sales tax revenue generated by Fairplex and $176 million in spending. The L.A. County Fair Association describes itself as self-supporting and boasts that it does not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body. Surplus revenues that are generated by the fair and other activities are reinvested into the maintenance and development of the facility. The association also states that Fairplex receives no government funding for the operation or maintenance of its facilities. However, Fairplex received $1 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2006. If the money is not used for the operation or maintenance of this thriving independent facility, what is it used for? Maybe the funding is intended for some other activities at the Fairplex, such as the Wally Parks NHRA Motor Sports Museum or the Frank Hawley Drag Racing School. Maybe these funds are for Fairplex Park, a major horse racing facility with a grandstand and air-conditioned clubhouse for satellite gambling. There is no question that Fairplex delivers major economic benefits for L.A. County and the rest of California. But I do question, however, why the Federal Government is throwing money at an independent facility that generates over $334 million in economic activity nationwide. Fairplex does so well, in fact, that it donates more than $400,000 in cash and in kind to local organizations each year. So why are we giving this earmark? That is the question. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of Italian food. My district is home to a great Italian restaurant, Anzio's Landing. You can order many of your favorite dishes, good Italian bread, and there are many former New Yorkers in my district, and they know it well. But if the owner of this restaurant, whom I know well, if he approached me to get a Federal earmark to modernize his restaurant, I would have to tell him ``fuhgetaboudit.'' Today I am bringing this amendment to learn whether the rest of the House will agree with me on that premise. The bill before us today asks us to spend $150,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars to the Arthur Avenue Retail Market, an Italian grocery market in a neighborhood labeled Bronx's Little Italy. Over a dozen merchants currently reside in the market, including Joe Liberatore's Garden of Plenty, Peter's Meat Market and Mike's Deli, a two-generation family-owned business that sells antipasti, breads, meats, pasta, and imported cheeses. The market is also home to the La Casa Grande Tobacco Company, which offers hand- rolled cigars. In 2004, the market received $300,000 in earmarked Federal dollars for renovations. The market received another $400,000 in Federal transportation appropriation dollars for a new parking facility in 2005. We are back. In 1940, Mayor LaGuardia built an indoor Arthur Avenue Market to take street vendors out of the cold. This is where this originated. In the 1980s, the merchants of the market formed a co-op and paid for renovations to that market. Now, there are long lines at the market on weekends to get great Italian bread, cheese and salami. I would ask the sponsor of this amendment why close to $700,000 has been spent on this Italian grocery market and why another $150,000 in taxpayer funds is needed. There is a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District, or that is, a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District for a private Italian grocery market. I think we need to slice off some of this appropriations bill. If there is a place to slice, this is certainly it. What possible Federal purpose does this earmark serve? Does the taxpayer even get a free Italian cookie assortment? If we allow our tax money to go to this grocery market, what benefit is there for the Federal taxpayer? There are certainly plenty of private benefits, but what Federal benefit? How do we justify this? I would argue that this is one cannoli the taxpayer doesn't want to take a bite out of. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association, which receives a $1 million earmark in this bill. The Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association was created in 1987 to promote, expand, develop and market the existing and potential tourism industry in southern and eastern Kentucky. According to our research, since 1987, the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Tourism Development Association has received more than $18 million in Federal grants, loans, and earmarks. In fact, last year, in the fiscal year 2006 Science, State, Justice and Commerce appropriation bill, the Southern and Eastern Kentucky Development Association received a $3 million earmark. Now I love traveling, as everyone here does; and I am all for seeing Kentucky tourism continue to grow. But again, here, how do we justify favoring this tourism association and not others? We have one in Arizona. Virtually every State has one. Many regions in our State have their own tourism associations. How do we decide that one is worthy of earmarks and another one is not? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me simply make the point, I was not around when the central Arizona project or other water projects in Arizona were approved, but I do know this: Nobody slipped funding for the central Arizona project in an appropriations bill at the last minute in a conference report. These programs were authorized. There were appropriations. There has been oversight. It is the antithesis of what we are doing here in this bill and in this process this year. We need to get back to the process of authorization and appropriation and oversight. We seem to have abandoned the outer two bookends, and all we are doing is appropriating, as I would submit, when you have descriptions this vague and you have situations where Members do not even come to the floor to defend it, and we still do not know on one of these that I offered today who the author is. On what I offered last week on two of the earmarks, we still do not know who offered them, but yet we pretend we are offering good oversight? We are really not. We can do a lot better than this. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.