Jeff Flake

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are told that the only decision is to either spend it ourselves or leave it to those amorphous bureaucrats in Washington. How about leaving it to the market? That is where things like this are developed. Why are we choosing one? And I would have to dispute the characterization of this money going to Oak Ridge Laboratory. If this money went straight to Oak Ridge Laboratory, I believe it would say that in the earmark. All we have to go on is what we have here, and that is part of this process, why it is so bad. We have not had any hearings on this subject. There is no other documentation than the committee report; and the committee report, like I said, we only found out later that there were actually two earmarks because one of them did not say the company, but the company says to Southwest Gas. Is the gentlewoman saying that the money is not going to Southwest Gas, that none of the earmarked funds go directly to Southwest Gas?

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I call attention to this earmark today because there is so little information available about its purpose. It appears inconsistent with the program that would fund it. The committee report lists this earmark, for the Science Museum of Virginia, in the Biological and Environmental Research program. My amendment would prevent funding for this purpose. I know that some museums do scientific research, but the background research on this earmark turned up very little by the way of research being done by the Science Museum of Virginia. As an aside, I would note that the museum will soon open a traveling exhibit on candy, sponsored by the Jelly Belly Candy Company. It does not sound like much research to me. I know that the Science Museum of Virginia was created by State law, and I have a basic understanding of the mission of the museum, and the intentions are certainly worthy. The museum says it is currently raising funds to restore and remodel parts of the building; to add classrooms, meeting facilities, a library, a cafeteria, and office space; for new landscaping, new parking facilities, and exhibits. But why are Federal funds being used for these projects? It just isn't clear to me how the museum serves a Federal function when it comes to biological and environmental research. Again, that is the program through which we are funding this museum. I am sure that the museum is funded in part by admission fees and also by State tax funds. I would think there are also private donors who fund it. Again, what is the Federal purpose being served by funding this earmark? How should we explain this one to the taxpayers of Arizona or California or Iowa or Michigan or anywhere else outside the State of Virginia? I am afraid that fiscal discipline and transparency is such a thing of the past that we will begin to see museum exhibits about it. I just don't see why we are doing this, why we are funding this type of museum out of a program that is supposed to be for scientific research. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE

Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank Members for their indulgence. I know it is not easy to sit through so many amendments in a row. I appreciated this process, for one actually to see and hear people defend their earmark on the floor. That is something which has been missing. As I mentioned, you see 415 projects in the report; no description really of them, and no Members' name attached. You could not call them and ask, what is this about? So the only way you can do that is come to the floor and do what we just did. I would submit that we need to do a lot more of it, and we need to get back to authorization, appropriation and oversight. Let me say again, when we are spending money like this, then we seem to have money to throw around, and I would submit that the average taxpayer in California or Oregon or Arizona or anywhere would look at this and say, why are we taking my hard-earned money and spending it to give $250,000 to the grape and wine industry that means about $50 billion to the U.S. economy? That is not a prudent use of taxpayer resources. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would simply make the point again: a $50 billion industry I think probably has the means at its disposal to fund this kind of research that we are talking about and could perhaps fill the void. A $50 billion industry could fill the void of $250,000 that is given back to the taxpayers or spent in another area. If you can find a definition of corporate welfare in the dictionary, this would probably be it. A $50 billion industry, and yet we are giving them $250,000 to have research carried out to enhance the industry's competitiveness and contribution to the U.S. economy. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, this is another example of the Federal Government funding a program that can and is funded by the private sector. I should note here the vision of the initiative says: ``By 2020, the American grape and wine industry will triple its economic impact and become the undisputed world leader in consumer value and sustainability. The target is an economic impact of $150 billion within 16 years. This is based on a conservative estimate of current annual impact of approximately $50 billion a year.'' I would submit that if an industry out there has a $50 billion-a-year impact on the economy, $50 billion, then the Congress need not spend $250,000 for strategic research and a plan to enhance the grape industry's competitiveness and contribution to the U.S. economy. I can tell you what the contribution is to the U.S. economy. We have been told. It is about $50 billion a year. Yet here we are spending $250,000 for strategic research to enhance the grape industry's competitiveness and contribution. Again, if we are going to get control on spending, we have to start somewhere. I would submit this is a great place to start. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I want to just say to the gentleman from Idaho that I appreciate working with him in this process to reform the earmark process. His insights as a member of the Appropriation Committee have been valuable, and he has agreed that it is a good thing to have Members' names attached to these earmarks. When people wonder why we are seeking this process now and how we are to provide oversight, I can tell you that with 450 earmarks in this bill, not one name was attached. That is why it has been a great process here today to see some of the authors, the sponsors of the earmarks come to the floor; otherwise, we wouldn't have known, unless you can find it in a press release somewhere, that they sponsored this legislation. We are looking for sunlight here. We would like to provide oversight, but it is difficult when we don't even know. We got the report last week. How are we supposed to scrub this? Let me also say that the executive branch doesn't always spend it wisely. All you have to do is drive through the fields of Arkansas and see those trailers and realize they bungle it often. What I am saying is that we diminish our credibility as those conducting oversight when we insert stipulations like this, when we say you have got to spend money on the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania, or we have to spend $6 million on wood utilization that we have been doing for almost 20 years and we never seem to get out of. We diminish our role as the conductors of oversight when we so trivialize this process and ignore the authorization and the oversight function. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute of my time to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the committee has provided $6,371,000 to provide science that addresses problems with harvesting, transportation, manufacturing and marketing of economical forest products. For all the talk about, we are cutting too much timber and we are doing too much of this, to provide this kind of subsidy for research on how to do it just seems to me out of line. Let me just point out, some of these earmarks we have been talking about have been just a few hundred thousand dollars, not that that is small money, but this one is $6 million. If we looked since 1985, this program is the wood utilization program that received Federal funds in excess of $86 million. So it goes on and on and on. This earmark was not included in the President's request. The United States is the world's largest producer of lumber and wood products used in residential construction and in commercial wood products such as furniture and containers. The United States is also the leader in the pulp and paper business, producing about 34 percent of the world's pulp and 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board. The forest products industries is a strong contributor to the Nation's economy, employing close to 1.3 million people in all regions of the country, ranking among the top 10 manufacturing industries in 46 States. Why in the world do we need to be spending over $6 million a year to talk about wood utilization? Again, let me repeat: The United States is the leader in pulp and paper business, producing 34 percent of the world's pulp, 29 percent of the world's output in paper and paper board, employs more than 1.3 million in all regions of the country, among the top 10 manufacturing industries in 46 States. Yet, we need a program that one of its goals is funding also goes towards educating graduate students to be knowledgeable in wood as a renewable resource? Now, we have been doing this program since 1985. I think wood has been around a lot longer than that. I think people know what a valuable resource it is. I do not think we need to be spending $6 million more in taxpayer money again this year to educate graduate students in wood as a renewable research. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, the bill that you mention is a perfect example. We do not need earmarks like this. We knocked all the earmarks out. We survived just fine. Members survived just fine. They were reelected. They came back. That was the only Labor-HHS bill I have ever voted for because it did not have earmarks. We finally got it right. We ought to continue it.

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

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

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlewoman for that point. We do have a problem entering into free trade agreements because we subsidize our agriculture so much. It is complicating the Doha round right now. We are limiting the markets that we can sell into because of our own subsidies. The country of New Zealand a few years ago thought they could never get away from agriculture subsidies. They just up and said one day, we are not going to do it anymore; we cannot afford to anymore. People predicted that their agriculture would drop considerably. It has not. They have thrived. If we simply trust in the market here and let the market take over, we would be far better off. But in this point, again, I would make the point, we can save money here. Earmarks are costing us a whale of a lot of money, not just because of the money in the earmarks themselves, but in the amount of funding that they leverage elsewhere because when you have an earmark in an appropriations bill, you had better not vote against that appropriations bill or you might see your earmark vanish. So it is not just the money in the earmarks, it is the money that is leveraged.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the gentlewoman's points, we do in Arizona get subsidies. We should not, particularly with cotton. Cotton is very water intensive. We receive subsidies in cotton in many ways, particularly through the farm bill. I would ask you, please join me in opposing the farm bill next year. We will have an extension of the farm bill perhaps this year. Please join me in opposing it for subsidizing far too much as well. We are spending too much money. It is not just in earmarks here, but it is other areas as well, but if we say we are not going to cut it in earmarks or other ways, where do we cut it? That is why our budget is simply growing and growing.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in response I would simply say I reject the premise that we cannot cut spending. This notion again that we will not save anybody by getting rid of earmarks. It is valid. This isn't a debate in a vacuum that really does not matter. If we reform the way we do earmarks, we will save significant money. I do not know about you, but $29 billion seems like a lot to me, $29 billion last year in appropriation earmarks. That is a lot of money. It adds up. A billion here and a billion there, soon enough you have got real money. So this notion that we cannot save and we are just throwing out a couple of names here, I would like to bring all 450 Member earmarks to the floor that were in this bill. Simply we do not have the time and we do not have the patience and I understand that. But how else can we highlight this? What other forum do we have? Believe me, if it is there we have used it. We have got to start somewhere. I think we have got to make a stand. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the Chair for his and this body's indulgence. This is a hydroponic tomato production earmark that we are challenging here. Again, let me make the broader point, what business is it of the Federal Government to pick winners and losers in the economy, to decide that we ought to be promoting hydroponic tomato production earmarks instead of promoting the cherry tomato or grape tomato or others out there that any Member could get an earmark for? Why is it this is important and the others are not? We as legislators have to decide how we are going to husband the Nation's resources. I would submit that when we have 10,000 earmarks a year or more and when we are growing it at a rate of 872 percent over the last 10 years, at some point, I do not know where that point is, maybe it is with hydroponic tomatoes, some point we have got to take a stand and say enough is enough. We simply cannot continue spending money like this. Again, let me just point out the notion that we cannot cut spending, that this money if it is not going to be spent here it will just be spent somewhere else by the administration is false. We can spend less. We can cut our own spending. We can cut our own allocations and say we simply do not need to spend this much money. Again, we are not potted plants here. We are legislators. We are here to make these decisions. I would submit that when we are spending $180,000 on hydroponic tomatoes that something has gone awry and we have lost our focus. That is what this debate is about. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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. I thank the gentleman for making those points. They are good ones. We have failed in our oversight function. But I would submit it is very difficult to criticize the Department of Defense for not buying sufficient body armor, for example, when we have instructed them with an earmark to spend more than a million dollars on a museum in New York with a congressional earmark, with a Member earmark. So we demean our role in oversight of the Federal agencies when we have instructed and stipulated that spending be on aquaculture in Ohio. It is very difficult to, with a straight face, tell the agencies you are misspending the taxpayers money when we are doing this. So we have a process that is a great process. This was set up right in this country. Authorization, appropriations, oversight. If we do not like the way the President is submitting his budgets or his recommendations, then in authorizing bills, let's say don't do that; these are the only programs that we are going to authorize. The trailers that ended up in Arkansas, I could not agree more. That was our mistake for giving $12 billion up front to FEMA. We should have said, let's have smaller trounces. Come every week and justify what you have done. Some of us recommended doing that. But it was not accepted, and we ended up with trailers in fields that are still in Arkansas. So we have a process. We need to follow it. We need to get back to it. That is what we are recommending here. Some people point out that earmarks have been around as long as Congress has, and I suppose that is true to some extent. But everyone knows, over the last decade in particular, we have simply gone hog wild with earmarks. We simply have to get this process under control. As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out again, we simply do not have enough staff to police this. We are out of control and if not to stand up here and challenge earmarks, I am at my wits' end. I do not know what else to do. I am frustrated. I am frustrated. I think a lot of us are. I know the taxpayers are. So that is why we are going through this process today. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the goal of this project, the aquaculture in Ohio earmark, is to foster the development of a statewide aquaculture industry in Ohio. Again, I have to ask the threshold question here: Where is the Federal nexus? Why are we taking taxpayer funds from someone in Maine and putting it here in aquaculture in Ohio? How do we make that leap that it is our responsibility as legislators to do that? Again, we can save this money. This money does not have to be spent. All we have to do is say change our allocation. Give less money. We can take some $400 million we are spending in Member earmarks and pay down the debt, fund the war effort, anything else but these earmarks, I would submit. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that one of the amendments I offered is actually to cut funding that goes to my State. I would simply point out again, last year there were more than 10,000 earmarks worth $29 billion. I would say, again, to the average American, that may not seem like much to us, but it seems like a lot to them. It is a lot to all of us. And as mentioned before, earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. When we get earmarks, it is much easier to vote for other things as well. The gentleman asked why we do not attack some of the other spending and look to entitlement spending. Twenty-five Republicans voted against the prescription drug benefit. We have worked to limit that program to where we can afford it. We added more unfunded liabilities to Medicare than exist in all of Social Security with that single bill. We voted against it. We offered alternative legislation. We tried to rally our colleagues to vote against it. What else are we supposed to do there? Here, with these earmarks, what other forum do we have to say, let us cut back somewhere, somewhere. On the road to 10,000 earmarks, cannot we just say, we have gone too far? Can we change this process? If we are funding, I would submit, greenhouse nursery earmarks, $726,000, we have not scrubbed this bug well enough. And the notion, again, that if we do not spend this money here, it will just get spent elsewhere demeans us as legislators, because it is our duty to actually police how this money is spent. And if it is not going to be spent here, then, again, let's go to the Budget Committee and say, we do not need this big of an allocation. Let's put it to the war effort. Put it to pay down the debt, somewhere else. But this process, it ought to be authorization, appropriation, oversight. And somehow we have neglected the first two, authorization and oversight. And all we do is appropriate. And then these earmarks, very few of them actually have any oversight, these special research grants, there is some kind of reporting there. But in most of the earmarks, there are not. As I mentioned, most of the agencies do not even know that these are being funded, or do not even know what the program is, they simply fund them. They do not have the opportunity to exercise oversight there. And we do not certainly exercise the oversight here. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.