Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

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. Mr. Chairman, I put this next one after the last one because they kind of are similar. Again, the argument has to be why aren't we debating this in the Labor-HHS bill? If we are debating it at all, it should be debated in the Labor-HHS. This earmark that we are seeking to strike is $1 million for the JASON Education Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia. Again, it seems like something that ought to be in the Labor-HHS bill. The mission of the JASON Foundation, and this is from their own Website, is to ``inspire in students a lifelong passion for learning in science, math and technology through hands-on, real-world scientific discovery.'' That is a wonderful mission. I am glad kids are getting the opportunity, but we shouldn't be funding it in the defense bill. Dr. Robert Ballard has already been referenced here. He is the world's foremost ocean archeologist, and is its founder. They have good leadership. This is the same Dr. Ballard who collocates his ocean exploration operations out of the Mystic Aquarium, the recipient of $1.4 million in earmarks so far this year. With corporate sponsorship and support from the likes of Oracle, Sun Microsystems, EDS, Shell, and Texas Instruments, the JASON Foundation has very good backing. However, this earmark raises questions that apply to too many other earmarks: Why is it in the defense bill? Should it receive any earmark funding at all? Who requested it? We don't know. I to this moment do not know who requested this earmark. I am hoping the author will come and say. Has there been a hearing on the subject? What essential Federal purpose does this serve; and doubly, what defense purpose does this earmark serve? I think the mission of the JASON Foundation is noble, but the fact that we are funding it this way with this vehicle without real transparency is very disconcerting. This is not the Labor-HHS-Education bill. And frankly, given a lack of transparency and many problems that the current earmarking process presents, I don't think that it belongs in that bill either when we have a situation where I still to this moment have no idea who authored this earmark or what else it is supposed to do. All I know is what I have read, and yet we are being asked to approve a million dollars for it. This is the only oversight this earmark will likely ever get. There is virtually no oversight after this. The agencies don't know about these earmarks. Most of the time they can't tell us what the earmark is for. And if we don't ask these questions here on the House floor, they simply don't get asked. I am anxious to hear answers to the questions that have been asked: Why is it in the defense bill? Who requested it? Has there been a hearing on the subject? Is there a Federal purpose? And is there a purpose for it in the defense bill? I can't ask that question too many times: Why are we funding this in the defense bill?

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this process of challenge earmarks on the floor is often described at tilting at windmills, so I suppose it is only proper that we start today with an earmark for the wind demonstration project. This amendment seeks to prohibit $6.3 million from being used to fund this project. It appears that this is the second year in a row that this project has received multiple millions of dollars in Federal funding. Last year's defense appropriations included $4.25 million for this same earmark. It appears the funding was not requested by the administration. While little information is made available in this year's report, last year's conference report indicated that the funding is for a ``wind demonstration project on a U.S. Air Force installation using domestically manufactured turbines that are new to the U.S. market to test the security and reliability of wind generation on base.'' So I ask when this country is at war and seeing unprecedented increases in the Federal debt, why are we spending more than $10 million on windmills for military bases? How is it in the list of extensive and costly priorities for the United States military that testing newly introduced turbines rises to the list above research and development that could save lives? How is it possible in addition that taxpayers could be asked to spend more than $10 million on an earmark that doesn't even include such basic information as where this will be sited or what companies will directly benefit from the funding? How can we honestly say to Members that Members have a real oversight, that we have real accountability here when we are spending millions of dollars? I would submit that spending like this doesn't just waste precious defense dollars, but it leaves taxpayers hanging in the wind. Let me simply conclude by saying that this applies to many amendments that I will address today. They may be worthy projects, yes, but how can we justify them? How can we justify using the money in the defense bill? Here we have a technology, wind generation. Let me just say in March 2005 at the request of Congress, the Department of Defense issued a renewable energy assessment that stated that currently 2.5 percent of the energy used on military installations is already from renewable sources. This level of renewable energy use meets a Federal goal already set by the Department of Energy. In addition the report indicated the best way to increase the level of renewable energy being used by military installations would be through purchasing commercially developed renewable energy, not by spending earmarked money, millions of dollars, to put windmills there. We know that wind energy is the most unreliable there is, and how we are supposed to pursue renewable projects to increase energy security at military installations by installing windmills simply strains reason.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before I address this amendment, let me simply say that I spoke earlier today with Representative Cuellar. He would have liked to be here to offer a defense of the last earmark, the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training program. He offered a spirited defense to me today. I still don't happen to agree with him about the amendment, but I know he would have liked to be here to offer that. And I have enjoyed the opportunity to hear about these amendments and to hear them defended today as Members have known that they are going to be challenged on the floor, and that is what this process is all about. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds from the Leonard Wood Institute at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. As many of you know, Major General Wood led the Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war. The Leonard Wood Institute develops, promotes, and manages worldwide collaborations that are related to the Department of Defense. I am all for seeing the Missouri business sector grow as I would other States' business sectors as well, particularly Arizona. But it seems to me that American taxpayers are being asked to spend Federal defense dollars on promoting Missouri businesses rather than on the war on terror. Again, we are picking winners and losers here. I know that there are institutions in Arizona, business sectors everywhere else, that would like to get this kind of funding, $20 million, in the defense bill. So why are we choosing one State? Why are we picking the businesses of that one State as the winners here? I would ask the chairman of the subcommittee or the sponsor of the amendment to explain to the taxpayers and every other State outside of Missouri why we should support this earmark. Frankly, dollars in the defense bill should go to the war on terror. They ought to go to the troops. They ought to go for body armor. They ought to go for vehicles, for ammunition, for everything else we spend on defense. I do not believe they ought to go to support businesses that are simply looking for defense contracts or looking to promote business in one particular State.

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

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman mentioned school districts in my State that would benefit. I would say again, this is the exact point we are making. This is not the Labor-HHS bill. This is the defense bill, for crying out loud. We are trying to fund our defense, and we are bleeding off dollars to aquariums. This is the wrong place to have this debate. It should be on Labor-HHS.

Mr. FLAKE. I simply want to respond to the allegation that I did not know that some of the beneficiaries were in my district. I stated that in my statement. I know they are. I live less than 2 miles from them. I spoke with the Boeing representative this morning, and I knew full well that it would impact them.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, before addressing this amendment, let me simply speak to the problem with this process of earmarking. We have the last amendment with regard to the Jason Foundation. All we know is that it was, I believe, requested for Ashburn, Virginia. We still do not know, after having voted for it, after 332 Members voted for it, after people came to defend other earmarks, nobody came to defend this one. We still do not know. What we do know is that the administration never requested it, that no hearings were ever held, no markup was ever held. We still do not know why it is in the defense bill. As I mentioned, we do not know who requested it. There is no oversight mentioned, no, no process or structure for oversight, nothing, yet we just appropriated $1 million for the Jason Foundation in Ashburn, Virginia. That is all we know, and that is all we will probably ever know. What kind of process is that? It is simply wrong. We should have a process that is more transparent where there is real accountability. Let us go on to this amendment. This is an amendment to strike $4 million for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation in Media, Pennsylvania. This amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Center for Rotorcraft Innovation. According to the center's Web site, their goal is to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. rotorcraft industry in the world marketplace. I should say nobody is more supportive of a strong, viable rotorcraft industry than I am. Just about 2 miles from my house is the Boeing facility that makes the Apache. About a mile and a half from my home is where MD Helicopter has made for Special Forces the Little Bird helicopter. So this is important for my district and every other district that does have a strong, viable rotorcraft industry. But what we should not be doing is picking winners and losers and saying the Federal Government, in the defense bill, is going to prop up one industry or another. We simply should not be doing that. The helicopter companies that are principal members of the center are world-class and competitive because they make a great product needed by our military and militaries around the world. I have toured a number of times the Apache facility. I have heard the accounts of soldiers who have been to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Apache has performed wonderfully. I have also toured MD Helicopter. It is a great product. I am sure Sikorsky and others who manufacture helicopters do as well. The question becomes, why are we using the defense bill as a mechanism to fund a center like this when these businesses are fully capable of marketing their own products? The rotorcraft industry wants $4 million of Federal defense dollars to subsidize their marketing efforts around the globe. They are doing pretty well. I hope they continue to do well. They are competitive because they make a good product, not because the Federal Government is subsidizing them. Many of them compete for government contracts. That is great. We rely on them, but we shouldn't be saying, all right, we are going to pick you and we are going to lavish you with Federal dollars to help market your product. Those of us who oppose corporate subsidies for cotton and sugar and tobacco and the airline industry, I think that we also ought to say, if we are going to oppose those subsidies, why don't we oppose subsidies for the rotorcraft industry as well? At this time of war, we need to send money to help our troops and not subsidize private industry. Again, it is not the role of the Federal Government, and certainly not in a defense bill, to be picking winners and losers in industry, saying you are going to get a subsidy but you are not. This argument will come up as we offer additional amendments in the next few minutes, but I would ask support for this amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Well, thank you, and I simply want to reiterate if I were to stand here and offer amendments that had no impact on my district at all, if I ignored those that had an impact, then I could be accused of hypocrisy and doing things that simply have no impact on me. I have tried to make a point to offer amendments that do have an impact, and I have offered them in other bills as well, those that have an impact on both my district and on my State. I simply think that this process is out of control and we have to start on it. And I appreciate the gentleman from Hawaii. That was a very good explanation. I appreciate that hearings have been held on this, certainly more thoroughly than some of the other earmarks. But the case I would make is that simply I have made my case.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funds in this bill from being used for the Illinois Technology Transition Center, which receives $2.5 million in this legislation. The Illinois Technology Transition Center's objective is to stimulate enterprise growth by helping technology companies realize their commercial potential. The center offers entrepreneurial services, technology transition support, and commercialization support. Again, this is a defense bill, yet we are offering this funding. I support the technology center. I encourage growth in it. I think all of us do. It is a great source of entrepreneurship and innovation. The United States has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world. Technological progress is responsible for one- half of the growth of the U.S. economy. Competition is a driving force in this innovation. We all know that free markets flourish when there is less government involvement. I am all for seeing the technology sector in Illinois grow, just as I do hope that it grows in Arizona or any other State. However, in this defense bill the American taxpayers are being asked to pay for support services for the private sector. I don't think that that is appropriate in a defense bill. Our troops are fighting insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We ought to be spending money in the defense bill on equipment, on helmets, on body armor, on other things, rather than subsidizing the technological center in one particular State. I should note I believe the Illinois Technology Transition Center was established by a contract with the Department of the Navy, the Office of Naval Research, in 2005. But it is also my understanding that the Office of Naval Research did not request this earmark for $2.5 million in funding. With that, I request support for the amendment.

Mr. FLAKE. You bet.

Mr. FLAKE. I was told by a reporter this morning who it might be. That was the first time I learned it after I had already agreed to offer it.

Mr. FLAKE. I was told that it was the Speaker who offered it.

Mr. FLAKE. Well, seeing that I had already agreed to offer it, I thought that had I agreed to pull back now, I would be looked to favoring one particularly powerful Member of my party.

Mr. FLAKE. I would not like to withdraw the amendment. I would simply say, and I thank the gentleman for yielding, this is the private sector. I would submit that companies in Phoenix and in St. Louis and in a number of cities and centers around the country are facing difficulties and are having drawdowns, or technology is shifting. The world economy is shifting. But we can't simply at any time like this say, all right, we are going to give an earmark to that industry or to that region. If we do that, there is simply not enough money in the Federal budget. There is not enough money in the Federal budget to do what we are doing. We are in a deficit.

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