[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 161 (Tuesday, October 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Page H11910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               LIMITING EARMARKS ON APPROPRIATIONS BILLS

  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, in a couple of weeks, it is likely that we 
will be addressing the Labor-HHS bill. We have passed the bill in the 
House. I believe they have passed the bill in the Senate, but conferees 
have not been named. We will be asked to approve a large bill that I 
believe is over the President's budget. But, more significantly, this 
is the first test of actually doing a conference under the new earmark 
rules.
  We had new earmark rules passed at the beginning of the year that 
provide a little more transparency than we have had before, and that is 
a good thing; but it hasn't done much to cut down the number or dollar 
value of earmarks, because we haven't gotten through the process now.
  Some people have said in the House we have fewer earmarks, the dollar 
value is down, and that is a good thing. Certainly it is a good thing. 
But we are only halfway through the process. Typically, when you get to 
the conference process, that is where a lot of the mischief happens, 
where earmarks are added in the middle of the night and you aren't 
given a chance to vote on them. You simply vote on the bill, either up 
or down.
  Just to give you a flavor of what is in this Labor-HHS bill, the 
House bill included about 1,342 earmarks. These earmarks were added in 
the conference report of the bill that came to the House. They were 
added just days before the bill came to the house. We had very little 
opportunity to actually look at the earmarks to find out which Member 
had offered them and to offer amendments to strike those earmarks. A 
few amendments were offered here on the floor, but that is hardly a 
process that can pass for due diligence to actually see what is in 
these earmarks.
  Now, I hasten to add that this is not a partisan issue. There are 
both Republican and Democrat earmarks in this bill. When Republicans 
were in charge of this body, typically Republicans got about 60 percent 
of the earmarks, the Democrats got about 40 percent. Now that has 
switched.
  But, really, I wish it were a partisan issue. I wish, as one of my 
side of the aisle, that Republicans were right on and Democrats were 
wrong on. But we haven't seen that. We have seen both parties continue 
to earmark in this fashion.
  There are 1,342 earmarks in the House bill. Let me just read through 
a few to give people a flavor of what is there.
  I wish we didn't have to do this. I wish there was another way. But 
as I mentioned, when these bills come to the floor, the committee 
report will accompany the bill. It will only come a few days before the 
bill passes, and we aren't given a real opportunity to vet these 
earmarks and look at them.
  Let me read a few of them. For example, $300,000 goes to the American 
Air Power Museum in Farmingdale, New York, for exhibits and educational 
programs. This may be a great museum, but why the Federal taxpayer 
should be on the hook to fund it, I don't know.
  And $200,000 in this bill goes to the American Jazz Museum in Kansas 
City, Missouri, for exhibits and education programs. It may be a great 
museum, but why is the Federal taxpayer paying for?
  $200,000 for the American West Heritage Center in Wellsville, Utah, 
for a lifelong learning initiative.
  $125,000 for the Children's Museum in Indianapolis, Indiana, for 
exhibits and equipment.
  $200,000 for a Children's Museum in Los Angeles for exhibits and 
educational programs.
  $150,000, College Park Aviation Museum in College Park, Maryland.
  If you are recognizing a theme here, the Federal Government is 
funding a lot of museums. Why is this the case? Why, when we are 
running massive deficits, when we have a big debt and other obligations 
that are crying out to pay down the debt, to lower the deficit, why are 
we funding programs like this? Why are we on the hook for these 
programs yet again? You have to remember, whenever you are funding a 
museum, because we have a deficit, we are borrowing money to do that.
  $250,000 for the Discovery Center in Idaho. This is in Boise, for a 
science center.
  $350,000 for an aerospace museum in McClellan, California, for 
exhibits.
  $350,000 for the George and Eleanor McGovern Library in Dakota 
Wesleyan University in Mitchell, South Dakota.
  $75,000, Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California.
  Here is another theme. We fund a lot of aquariums. There are great 
aquariums that educate a lot of people, but why we are doing it at the 
Federal level, I don't know.
  $350,000 for the Museum of Aviation Foundation in Warner Robins, 
Georgia, for educational programs.
  Let's pay attention to the Labor-HHS bill as it comes along.

                          ____________________