Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative, which receives $2.5 million in this defense bill. What is the Northwest Manufacturing Initiative? Where is the money going? To the northwest of what? Of the United States? Of Arizona? Of Washington, DC.? There is no description of this project in the committee report. It strikes me again, why can't Members get more information on these projects beforehand? We made calls to the Department of Defense, which funds this earmark. They knew nothing. They didn't get back to us with anything. Calls were unanswered. We asked the Appropriations Committee as well, and we couldn't get anything from the Appropriations Committee before we filed the amendment to be offered here. It was only after the amendment was filed that those who are sponsoring the earmark called to tell us what the amendment is about. It is the Northwest portion of the United States, I come to understand, and it is a manufacturing initiative, but we don't know much else about it. A few of the Members have been kind enough to share with me today what they are seeking to do. My understanding is that businesses in the Northwest, particularly those that contract with the United States Government, the Department of Defense and others, some are having difficulty, as they are in many parts of the country. My question is, why in the defense bill are we offering help to manufacturing companies in the Northwest? What about the Southeast or the Southwest? What about companies in Arizona or California or Colorado? Why don't they get similar treatment? How does the Federal Government decide, all right, we are going to help manufacturing companies there, but not here? Again, we are picking winners and losers here. It is not the job and should not be the job of the Federal Government. I appreciate the fact there are Members here willing to defend this amendment. My good friend Mr. Blumenauer is here to do so and others, and I appreciate that. In this way we can actually have a dialogue. Again, sometimes this is the only oversight, the only explanation. This is it. This is all we get on some of these earmarks. I feel it is important when we are spending taxpayer dollars, particularly $2.5 million in the defense bill, that it is important to know what it is going for. So I am glad the authors of the amendment are here, and I look forward to the explanation.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding from going to the Lewis Center for Educational Research in Apple Valley, California. Mr. Chairman, the Lewis Center has hosted more than 100,000 students, teachers, and parents participating in educational activities. The center's Web site contains a wish list for funding for three log cabins for third graders, an amphitheater, a schoolhouse shed, a large water wheel for panning gold during the gold rush educational fourth grade outreach program, and similar activities to that. Mr. Chairman, these are undoubtedly worthy educational tools. My question is this: Why are Federal tax dollars intended for our national defense being used to fund this type of institution? It seems that corporate sponsors of the center abound, including corporations like JPL, Allied Signal, Boeing, Verizon, Lucent Technologies, Lomac Information System, Mitsubishi, RFG, Rockwell Rocketdyne Aerospace. Surely these donations can keep the center in good stead. The center has already received $3 million in earmarked funds in fiscal year 2004 and an additional $2.5 million in 2005. It looks as if the center is back for more in this bill to the tune of $4 million. The description of the earmark in this bill provides no detail on how the $4 million is to be spent on the Lewis Center. If there is a defense angle for this earmark, I am simply not seeing it. Again, it seems as if we are debating the Labor-HHS bill at this point or some other education bill and not the defense bill. These may well be worthy programs, but should we be funding them with defense dollars? I would like to hear justification for the Federal defense function in this case. Again, why are we doing this in the defense bill? These are clearly educational functions. Why should we be taking money that could be spent for the troops and for the operations in the military for things like this?

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from going to the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program, or ALERRT program, at Texas State University in San Marcos, Texas. The ALERRT program, as it is called, provides training for first responders and police officer. It would appear that this is not the first earmark appropriated to Texas State University for the ALERRT program. Evidently, the program has received $300,000 in the past; now it needs another $1 million. I am all for the training of our police officers, although it is primarily a function of State and local governments. However, I understand the Federal Departments of Justice and Homeland Security grants go toward law enforcement agencies. In the defense appropriations bill why is this a vehicle for funding for law enforcement training? Are we not adequately training our military troops at our Defense Department facilities? Do we now need to send them to this law enforcement training center? If this is the case, I would submit that we ought to hold some hearings on the subject. I should note that the President did not request this money. I would submit that it is time for Congress to be a little more attentive to how we are spending and earmarking valuable defense dollars. Again, we have other appropriations bills, and homeland security certainly comes up here. This is a function of training local police officers or others for a local police function. We have scarce defense dollars, and we shouldn't be spending them in this way. I hope that we will vote for this amendment and keep the funding for defense in defense.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, the main sponsor of this amendment, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor of it. I would love for the President to have this authority, as he should have it. I would love to give him this authority, but I think unless he is going to go under FISA, he ought to come ask for it. I think that he needs it, I think it is proper. But when we are told, as we have been on the Judiciary Committee by the Attorney General, that he feels that any domestic surveillance could be okay, he wouldn't rule it out, what isn't allowed? Why does the President need FISA at all if he can simply go around it? What purpose does FISA serve? Why did we go through what we went through for months and months with the initial PATRIOT Act and then for a year to reauthorize it? In the end, we had to ask ourselves, after hearing the testimony of the Attorney General, why did we do this? Why are we so specific and so careful about the powers that we give to the executive when they can simply ignore it and go on their own? It simply begs the question if you are not going to use FISA, why not just run amuck? I submit that the acid test for Republicans on this has to be, would we be comfortable if a Democrat were in the White House using this authority? I have to say I wouldn't be. But nor am I comfortable with a member of my own party having it. There is a separation of powers argument here. We are a coequal branch of government, and I think it is our constitutional obligation to say if you are not going to use FISA, tell us why. Tell us what we need to do to make it more applicable. We have offered that numerous times in the Judiciary Committee, yet we are told, no, you don't need to change it. Of course we don't need to change it if they can simply go around it. So I think the gentleman's amendment is perfectly proper. Believe me, if this amendment passes, and the administration feels compelled, they will come directly to Congress and ask for the authority, but they will do it right, and I think the Congress will be glad to give it to them. But there has to be bounds here. We are the elected representatives. It struck me when one of the Members in opposition to this amendment said a lot of people in the executive branch know about this program. That ought to be disturbing to a lot of us, that far more people in the executive branch know about this program than the elected representatives of the people. Does that not disturb anybody around here that many people over in the executive know about it and we don't? We are told in the National Security Act that the President is supposed to inform the committees of jurisdiction. It doesn't say a few members of those committees, the committees of jurisdiction. I think we simply ought to follow this. This is a reasonable amendment. I would urge those in my party and the other party to support it.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, when I saw this earmark, which is $1 million for research at the environmental center at Mystic Aquarium, Connecticut, I thought I was experiencing deja vu. We had a similar amendment in the Energy and Water bill just last week, or 2 weeks ago. Now we are looking at the defense bill, and the only difference is the amount of the earmark. I believe it was $400,000 then; this defense bill earmark is for $1 million. My amendment would remove this earmark from the bill. Now, during our debate a few weeks ago on this subject, we learned that the aquarium has been in operation for over 20 years, that it is an educational and research institution with expertise in ocean environmental studies and in deep sea exploration. We learned that it provides activities and learning for boys and girls clubs. All of these are worthy activities, certainly. We learned that the world's foremost deep sea explorer collocates his operation at the aquarium. That is Dr. Robert Ballard, I believe. What we didn't learn was why this aquarium gets favorable treatment over aquariums in Arizona or Massachusetts or Kansas. We didn't learn what enumerated Federal function the aquarium fills. We certainly did not learn, and we haven't learned yet today, and I hope to learn in the next 5 minutes, how the aquarium contributes to the most basic and critical function of defending our country. We just heard a great discussion about how we need to free up more funding for helmets for our military. I would suggest this is a great place to start. It is often said you can't vote for the Flake amendments because the money will simply be spent anyway by the agency. In this case the agency is the Department of Defense, and I think it would be hard to believe that they could make a case for a program less wise than this on their own, that they have something that fitters away more dollars than spending on an aquarium. I like the Boys and Girls Club, but they aren't fighting for us and defending our country. Maybe they have programs that benefit them at this aquarium, but I would submit that it is no way to spend our defense dollars. By voting against this amendment, you are saying that we place more value in the defense bill for funding aquariums than we do in funding defense. Now we were trying to find out when we were researching this amendment, and we were not told much by the Appropriations Committee, so we tried to find out what this is, if it really is Connecticut, and I was told today, no, I think it is in Ohio on Lake Erie. I don't know what the aquarium does. I am anxious to learn what it does and how it contributes to defense. In this process without a unanimous consent agreement on this bill, I am unable to ask questions and then speak later. I hope whoever is sponsoring this legislation or supporting this will please tell us how it is more vital to fund aquariums in the defense bill than funding helmets for our troops, for example, or anything else the Defense Department can do. I would ask, please, for the sponsor of the amendment or whoever is defending it to tell us why we should be funding aquariums in the defense bill.

Mr. FLAKE

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, regardless of where any of us stand on the debate over the broader issue of travel to Cuba, I hope you will agree that there should be an exemption to the restrictions when it comes to travelers who wish to travel for a religious purpose. In fact, there is a current exemption for religious travelers. The Flake-McGovern-Emerson-Lee amendment would do nothing to weaken or lift restrictions of any kind of travel, religious or otherwise. In fact, my amendment would simply prevent any changes from being made to the exemption as it now exists. You might wonder, if religious travel is currently permitted by law, why are we proposing this amendment? Well, let me explain. In 1999, Congress established by law categories of permissible travel, including travel for religious exchanges. But over the past couple of years the Office of Foreign Assets Control, on instruction from the State Department, has published guidelines to accompany these regulations and they have in fact imposed new restrictions on religious travel to Cuba. They have resulted in the denial of travel licenses to many individuals and churches and synagogues, other religions who until recently had longstanding licenses. This type of regulation runs counter to the spirit of the 1999 law and current administration policy. For example, a woman from Indiana went with her church group to distribute Bibles and participate in religious meetings and events. Soon after her arrival home she was served with a notice of a several thousand dollar fine because she had been to a beach while she was in Cuba. I spoke to this woman. She had been to a beach once to a baptism. This is how ridiculous these restrictions have become. As a broader example, groups from the Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, United Church of Christ and many other faiths have been denied license to travel to Cuba although they have traveled there legally for years. I am afraid we are getting dangerously close to curbing the free exercise of religion in this context and having government impose a religious test. Are you truly religious enough to travel to Cuba? Is this a real religion that you are representing? That is not the business that this government ought to be in. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Before yielding 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts, let me simply state I have been to Cuba, as have a number of us. We have met with those who have been in prison for their activities and others. There is no one group that represents the pro- democracy movement in Cuba. Many people have encouraged us to do exactly what we are doing. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FLAKE. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, if we are afraid that the Baptists, the Methodist, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, United Church of Christ, and other faiths that are going to Cuba are somehow propping up the Cuban regime, then our worries are misplaced. That regime has been there for 47 years, and to deny missionaries and others the opportunity to go there and convert people to the faith and to work is simply wrong. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, all I can do in response to that is quote William Faulkner. Anyone who believes that we cannot save money by eliminating earmarks does not care much for the facts and is not much interested in them. The notion that this budget is set and now all we can do is spend up to the top of it belies the fact that last week we could have offered a lesser bill, a smaller bill. Earlier in the process when we established the budget, we could have simply said we are not going to fund this year. Therefore we are going to save billions and billions of dollars. But, no, we passed a bigger budget and then we come here today and say, darn, I wish we could have saved money; we just cannot, it is too late. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that people are getting tired of hearing that argument. And we simply cannot continue to spend money this way. So with that, I would urge that we accept this amendment, and at least start, at least send some signal that we are going to be better stewards of the taxpayers' money. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would bar Fairfax County from using $50,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars for field improvements in Annandale, Virginia. When I first saw this earmark, I had trouble understanding why the Federal Government was giving $50,000 to the Fairfax County Park Authority in Virginia for field improvements. Fairfax County is the 11th wealthiest county in the United States. I used to live there. It is a wonderful county. Has a wonderful park system and a big budget. Why the Federal Government is funding this, I just do not know. The county's 2007 available funds will total around $3.38 billion, total county funds. In 2004, the median household income in Fairfax County was $88,133, double the national average of $44,684. The Fairfax County Park Authority in Virginia received over $100 million in revenue in 2005, and spent under $70 million. Again, this is the park authority that we are funding here, adding over 30 million in net assets in one year alone. In 2005, the assets of the Virginia Park Authority exceeded its liabilities by more than $419 million. Along with parks, recreation centers and trails, the Fairfax County Park Authority manages seven golf courses. How should we explain this earmark to the taxpayers in Arizona or Colorado or New Mexico or anywhere else; or Mississippi, for that matter? My amendment would simply prevent funding for this purpose. In this bill, Virginia is expecting more than $24 million in earmarking, with more than $3 million in HUD grants alone. This is compared to States like Wyoming and Vermont which receive less than $1 million in total earmark funds in this bill. Why is the Federal Government adding to the wealth of the Fairfax County Park Authority by giving it $50,000 for field improvements? How does this earmark relate to the central purpose of HUD programs, which I thought was to help house people? Mr. Chairman, I welcome the justification for Federal funds in this case. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me simply state again, Fairfax County's available budget funds for 2007 are around $3.38 billion. The Fairfax County Park Authority received over $100 million in revenue in 2005 and spent under $70 million, adding over $30 million in net assets in 1 year alone. I would submit that it is the county's responsibility to decide what the priorities are, and if they decide that the priorities are not to spend $50,000 where we want to spend it here, then perhaps it ought to be taken up with the county, but not come to the Federal taxpayer again and again and again for these dollars when the local officials have turned them down for whatever reason. I can go in my own State and say, the city I live in, they will not appropriate money for the Little League field close to my home. I would like there to be funds for that. So, go to the Federal taxpayer. I could do that apparently. It would meet the criteria, but it is wrong. We should not do that. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would prevent $500,000 from being spent on renovations to the Banning, California, city-owned pool. This $500,000 is part of nearly $12 million provided to the State of California in HUD earmarks. Now, I live in the Southwest. I know the desert can get awful hot, and there is nothing better than taking a swim. But I do not know why we ought to give the Federal taxpayer a bath every time somebody wants a swimming pool. That being said, again here, I wonder what criteria we use when these earmarks come forward. If we can say that swimming pools, city-owned swimming pools are eligible for Federal funding, then what is not eligible for Federal funding? Do the criteria mean anything in that regard? Is anything open? Why not earmark the entire bill. If we accept the premise, which we seem to accept in this House, that we know better than the Federal bureaucrats on how to spend this money, why not earmark the whole thing? I might hear agreement there. That is what we seem to be doing. We keep going more and more and more. In 1994, I think there were a total of fewer than 2,000 earmarks on all appropriation bills. Last year there were over 10,000. The dollar value keeps increasing. So we simply have to go the other way. In 2006 the transportation appropriation bill included $250,000 for the city of Banning, California for city pool improvements. Similarly, the 2005 transportation bill included $250,000 for the city of Banning, California for construction and renovation of the city pool. So this is $500,000 tacked onto $250,000, tacked onto $250,000 for a pool, that to my understanding, has not even been built yet. They are waiting for more funds to come from the Federal Government apparently before they even build this pool. How does this happen? How does the community pool receive a revenue stream out of the Federal Treasury? I think this is simply the wrong way to do business. We have got to stop. What better place to stop than right here on this amendment and say we are going to send a signal to the taxpayers that we are going to do business differently? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments. When the gentleman says that this money will go back into the pool, I hope we are not talking about another swimming pool here. Let us remind ourselves what we are talking about here. Whether this funding is being spent by a Federal bureaucrat, I would submit that if they are saying that we ought to be spending money to offset the spending of some swimming pool in Gilbert, Arizona in my district, that would be wrong. A Federal bureaucrat, we ought to have oversight and say you shouldn't do that. But that doesn't mean that we ought to do it ourselves. I mean, it is tough for us to make a credible case for oversight of the Federal agencies when we are spending money like this. This is a swimming pool. The notion that the criteria now has a 40 percent match that we have to get the local folks to kick in money as well, boy, who wouldn't? Who would not offset their budget? What local municipality would not jump at the chance to pay only 80 cents on the dollar or 50 cents on the dollar for a new project that they have, swimming pool or otherwise? Where did this end? Where does this end? It is no better if it is a Federal bureaucrat. But, boy, we look horrible if we say, hey, we spend money better than Federal bureaucrats. We are going to spend it on a swimming pool in Banning, California. Simply wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.