[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H5689-H5690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OPENNESS IN THIS INSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, one of the hallmarks of this institution is 
openness. Every minute of debate in this Chamber is captured on C-SPAN 
cameras. Every minute of debate and dialogue in the committee rooms are 
transcribed and recorded. This practice is premised on the principle 
that the public has a right to know what factors go into our decisions 
here.
  I don't think the public would be very pleased to learn how much of 
this decisionmaking process is moving behind closed doors, particularly 
as it relates to earmarks.
  Over the past several years it became common practice for 
appropriators to include earmarks in committee and conference reports, 
rather than the text of the bills. Frequently, a committee report 
containing thousands of earmarks would come to the floor only hours 
before the final vote on the bill. At times the committee report would 
be made public only after the bill had already passed.
  The bottom line is that, over several years, earmarks endured very 
little scrutiny from this body. I think the voters have become very 
aware of this failing on our part. My party, the Republican Party, 
allowed the practice of earmarking to get out of hand. Taxpayers have 
paid the price. This institution has paid the price. Finally, we

[[Page H5690]]

Republicans paid the price at the polls this November.
  When the new majority took over in January of this year, they moved 
to include more transparency in the earmarking process. Members of 
Congress would, at long last, have to put their names next to the 
earmarks. We Republicans had done this in the fall, but only after the 
appropriations season was nearly done. This was a good move by the 
majority party in January. As I said at the time, they had the guts to 
do what we hadn't when it mattered, at the beginning of the 
appropriation process.
  There is reason now, however, to doubt the sincerity of these moves. 
House rules are only as good as our willingness to enforce them. And we 
have, as yet, not been willing to enforce these rules.
  When a bill comes to the floor now, there must be a list of earmarks 
with Member names next to them, or a certification that the bill 
contains no earmarks.
  When the supplemental came to the floor, there were clearly earmarks 
in the bill, yet there was a certification that there were no earmarks 
contained in the bill.
  The problem is, a point of order can only lie against the bill if 
there is no certification. So a certification, even though it might be 
patently wrong, has to be accepted by the Speaker or the 
Parliamentarians.
  The intelligence authorization bill came to the floor without a list 
of earmarks. The list of earmarks only came after the deadline to 
submit amendments to the Rules Committee; so then, again, there was no 
opportunity to challenge any of the earmarks in the bill. Then, despite 
the fact that there were more than 680 earmarks in the defense 
authorization bill, no amendments related to earmarks were allowed by 
the Rules Committee, even though some of the earmarks clearly had no 
relationship to defense.
  Now, we hear that the Appropriations Committee plans to keep earmarks 
secret until the appropriation bills this year have passed the House 
floor. Those earmarks would later be ``air-dropped'' into the 
conference report where no amendments are possible, where no scrutiny 
of these amendment or, I'm sorry, of these earmarks is possible.
  The vaunted sunlight that we said we were going to bring into this 
process is gone. We closed the drapes. We've snuffed out the candle.
  Mr. Speaker, this institution deserves better than this. We can do 
better. We should, on a bipartisan basis, bring this sunlight back. We 
need to subject earmarks to the scrutiny that they should have. No 
spending should occur in this body without the Members' knowledge, and 
that's what happens when earmarks are ``air-dropped'' into a conference 
report.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm convinced that in the end, the majority party will 
pay the political price. I hope that we would move before that time. I 
hope that we can, on a bipartisan basis, simply move forward and bring 
sunlight back into the process. That is what I think the citizens of 
this country deserve. It's what the taxpayers need to have

                          ____________________