[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14628-14635]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ellsworth). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Price) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my leadership for 
the opportunity once again to come to the floor and to shed a little 
light. Tonight, we are going to shed a little truth on some of the 
messages that we have heard just now and maybe previously here in 
Washington.
  This is another edition of The Official Truth Squad. The Official 
Truth Squad is a group of Republicans who desire to make certain that 
some sense of factual information is provided, Mr. Speaker, as we talk 
about the issues that are dealt with on the floor of this House.
  We have a favorite, a number of favorite quotes. One of them is from 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to 
their own opinion but not to their own facts.
  Mr. Speaker, it is curious to hear my friends on the other side of 
the aisle and their righteous indignation, the righteous indignation 
that they have about so many various things, particularly tonight when 
they talked about spending and funding the troops.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, it is curious because the bill that this House 
passed under the leadership on the other side, the majority party 
leadership, just 2 weeks ago, I know you will find this amazing, but 
that is a bill that could have been passed the first or second week of 
January of this year to appropriately fund the troops who are standing 
in harm's way, who are defending our liberty and our freedom and 
attempting to carry out what they believe, we believe, to be a role 
that will result in a more safe and secure Middle East and a more safe 
and secure United States of America.
  That bill was held up literally for 5 months because of political 
posturing and gamesmanship and all sorts of things that, frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, Americans are tired of. They are tired of it.
  We all got back in Washington from a week at home. Most of us went 
home to our districts. It is good to go home and hear what people are 
really thinking. The folks in my district on the northern side of 
Atlanta, they are mad as can be about the partisan games that are 
played here in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here to bring a little truth and light and fact to 
many different areas. But I think it is important for everybody to 
appreciate, especially in this body, that the bill that was passed to 
appropriately fund the troops, 2 weeks ago we passed that bill, that is 
a bill that could have been passed by virtually every single positive 
vote in this House the first or second week of January had our good 
friends, the Blue Dogs and others, not participated in the kind of 
gamesmanship that the American people are, frankly, tired of.
  I want to talk a little bit about the fiscal house being put back in 
order. Our good friends on the other side of the aisle talked about 
putting the, quote, ``fiscal house back in order'' which is why the 
Blue Dogs felt that they increased their numbers and assisted the 
election of the majority.
  I think it is curious when they talk about putting the fiscal house 
of this Nation back in order. Because if you look at the truth, if you 
look at facts, if you listen to facts and not just opinion, Mr. 
Speaker, you will appreciate I know that what has happened over the 
first, a little over 5 months of this new Congress under new leadership 
is that we have seen an increased authorization for over $50 billion in 
new spending. So are they putting the fiscal house back in order by 
decreasing spending? No. Over $50 billion in new spending authorized by 
this new majority with the Blue Dogs supporting virtually every one of 
those bills.
  So they must be then decreasing taxes, right, Mr. Speaker, in order 
to put the fiscal house back in order. Well, no, they are not doing 
that either. Because the budget that they adopted, this Democrat 
majority with I think the unanimous support of the Blue Dogs on the 
other side of the aisle, the budget that they adopted, over $400 
billion in new taxes for the American people. It is the largest tax 
increase in the history of the Nation. I guess that they would argue 
that is putting this fiscal house back in order.
  Well, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has many folks at home asking 
me if the Blue Dogs are not just lap dogs and if they are not just 
kowtowing to the Democratic leadership and doing what they are told to 
do, as opposed to being fiscally responsible. Which is what so

[[Page 14629]]

many of us on our side of the aisle are working so hard to do.
  So things are a little curious, which is why I think it is important 
to bring some truth and facts to the debate and the discussion.
  We had some curious things happen on the floor of the House today, 
Mr. Speaker. I know that you were as puzzled as I at some of the events 
that occurred yesterday. There was an indictment that was passed down 
in a court that indicted a Member of Congress, a Member of the House of 
Representatives. They indicted him I think on 16 counts. So the new 
majority party came to the floor of the House today, having known about 
the problem that this individual has had for years, literally. They 
came to the floor of the House today and they were stumbling over 
themselves to get to the microphone and to the floor as fast as they 
could to address this issue that could have been addressed long ago, 
and passed a resolution that said that anybody who had any criminal 
charge against them as a Member of Congress, a Member of the House, or 
any indictment would be referred to the Ethics Committee.

                              {time}  2245

  That may be appropriate. It passed by a wide margin. I was pleased to 
support it. I think the process was flawed. It didn't go through the 
regular committee process and, consequently, was a pretty poorly 
written bill, but it moves us in a little bit of the right direction.
  In that whole process of talking about it on the floor of the House 
this afternoon and evening, the majority leader said something to the 
effect of anyone accused of wrongdoing needs to be investigated. Any 
Member of the House who is accused of wrongdoing needs to be 
investigated, which brings up, Mr. Speaker, the whole issue of 
earmarks, of special projects.
  That's what I'd like to spend a little time talking about this 
evening, the whole issue of pork projects, special projects, earmarks, 
things that have inflated our budget to a huge degree and things that, 
frankly, ought not be included in the vast majority of bills, and if 
they are, they ought to have the greatest amount of scrutiny by both 
sides of the aisle, Members from both sides, and certainly greatest 
amount of scrutiny from our constituents, from people all across this 
Nation, and a great amount of scrutiny from the press.
  That's what we call sunshine. That's what I call sunshine for 
earmarks, and it's an important thing. And the majority party made a 
huge deal as they ran for office last fall about the importance of 
spending restraint and getting the fiscal house in order, as it were, 
although we haven't seen a whole lot of that since they took over, but 
they made a huge point about controlling earmarks and putting a lid on 
earmarks and special projects.
  And this past week, we've heard a lot about it, but what has happened 
is that things have actually gotten worse. Mr. Speaker, I know it's 
hard to believe, but they have actually gotten worse. And there are a 
number of people who believe that and a number of objective 
individuals. Again, facts will back up this case.
  There was a letter written by the minority leader to the Speaker 
recently in which he said, We now have reached the point at which the 
congressional earmark process has become less transparent and less 
accountable than it was during the 109th Congress, directly violating 
pledges made last year by Democratic leaders.
  That goes a long way. I tell you that's a major statement, less 
transparent, meaning not the kind of sunshine, and less accountable so 
that who knows where these projects are coming from. How are the 
people, how are the American citizens, supposed to hold their Member 
accountable if, in fact, they're doing what they don't believe they 
ought to do?
  It has gotten so bad that a Member of even the Democrat majority has 
said, A lot of Democrats believe it's our turn at the trough. Quite a 
statement, Mr. Speaker. A lot of Democrats believe it's our turn at the 
trough. That's a fact that that was indeed said, and in fact, it's 
distressing because it appears to be that that's the fact of action on 
the part of this new majority.
  Now, what did they do in fact? I have coined it Orwellian democracy 
because so often what has happened with this new majority is that they 
have said the right thing, they said they were going to do something, 
and then in fact either done exactly the opposite or ignored what they 
said they were going to do.
  Well, what do I mean by that, Mr. Speaker? I have in my hand here the 
book of rules of the House of Representatives. It's a pretty dry read, 
but it's got some important points in it, and these are the rules by 
which the House operates and by which we supposedly make certain that 
individual Members of this House are held accountable for their 
actions.
  One part of the rules talks about congressional earmarks. What's an 
earmark? How do you determine what an earmark is? How do you determine 
what a special project is? It's important to know that so you can say, 
yeah, that ought to be subject to a certain amount of scrutiny, 
hopefully more scrutiny, a certain amount of sunshine, that the 
individual Member of Congress ought to have to stand up and say that's 
my project, I support that project, I'm interested in having us spend 
Federal taxpayer money on that project.
  So what's the definition of a congressional earmark? Well, in House 
rule XXI, subclause 9(d) it says, congressional earmark means a 
provision or report language included primarily at the request of a 
Member providing, authorizing or recommending a specific amount of 
discretionary budget authority, credit authority, or other spending 
authority or other expenditure targeted to a specific State, locality, 
or congressional district other than through a statutory or 
administrative formula-driven or competitive award process.
  Now, what does that mean? That means that if an individual Member of 
Congress says I believe that certain Federal tax dollars, hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars ought to go for a specific project in my district for 
a specific purpose, and it's not part of any other authorization that 
the Federal Government has for another role or another aspect of its 
responsibility, it's something that a specific Member requests, that's 
a congressional earmark.
  Now, how do you make certain that there's appropriate accountability 
for that? Well, Mr. Speaker, another portion of the rules it says that 
a list of those earmarks have to be in any bill that has an earmark, 
and the list has to include the Member's name who requested it. That's 
an important point because that allows for the sunshine. That makes it 
so that all Members of this body know who's requested that. It makes it 
so that the press know who's requested it and they can follow up on it 
and do investigations if they deem it to be appropriate. It's necessary 
so that constituents, people out across America, can know who's 
requesting these things.
  And it goes on to say that if a list isn't included, the way that you 
can follow the rules as well is that a statement that the proposition 
contains no congressional earmarks may suffice. So, if the bill 
actually contained no earmarks, then all that it took was the chairman 
of the committee to write a statement to the Speaker and to the Rules 
Committee that, in fact, the bill contained no earmarks, no special 
projects.
  Now, one of the reasons that I've dubbed this the new Orwellian 
majority and Orwellian democracy is that what we've seen is that 
multiple bills, Mr. Speaker, multiple bills have come to the floor of 
the House with special project after special project after special 
project, millions and sometimes billions of dollars, and yet what is 
included in the report language from the committee is the sentence from 
the chairman that no congressional earmarks are in the bill, in spite 
of the fact that they're in the bill. That's why I call it Orwellian 
democracy because it just simply takes the chairman, an individual, to 
say, well, there aren't any earmarks in there, and so it satisfies the 
rule.

[[Page 14630]]

  Now, I went to the parliamentarian on this because I couldn't believe 
it. I said, Do you mean to tell me that if the chairman of the 
committee just says, regardless of its truth, just says there are no 
earmarks in this bill that that satisfies, that means there are no 
earmarks, even if there are? And the parliamentarian said absolutely 
correct, absolutely.
  And so the only option that we have is to come to the floor and say, 
look, what they've said just isn't the truth. Remember, it's an 
opinion. It's not a fact. And the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, 
that time after time this new majority has brought bill after bill to 
the floor with earmarks and special project after special project after 
special project and simply gotten around the rules because they say, 
oh, no, there's no earmarks here.
  Let me give you a couple of examples, Mr. Speaker, because I know 
people would be interested in looking at that. Members of the House, if 
they're interested, H.R. 1100 was a bill that we voted on just a couple 
of weeks ago. The whole legislation really was one big earmark with a 
$7 million estimate cost by CBO over a number of years, and it 
specifically dealt with one congressional district, one specific 
project, and it did not have any other statutory or administrative 
formula-driven or competitive award process. The whole thing was an 
earmark, but it had in the language of the report from the committee, 
no earmarks here, no earmarks here. Mr. Speaker, that emperor has no 
clothes I promise you.
  H.J. Res. 20 was the continuing resolution to make certain that there 
was the money in place to continue the Federal Government's responsible 
activities. What did that have? Multiple earmarks, multiple. Millions 
and millions of dollars of earmarks, and in fact, got around the rule 
by just saying, oh, there are no earmarks here, there are no earmarks 
here. Orwellian democracy, Mr. Speaker.
  And then most recently, the emergency supplemental appropriations 
bill had billions, billions of dollars in special projects, and in 
fact, all that was done in order to comply with the rules of the House 
was to have one of the chairmen of the committee say, oh, no, there are 
no earmarks here.
  It reminds one of the Wizard of Oz, you know, where the wizard says, 
oh, don't pay any attention to that man behind that curtain. Well, 
that's kind of what the majority party is asking; don't pay attention 
to these earmarks even though we say there are none.
  So what's the solution now? They have taken a lot of heat, this 
majority party has taken a lot of heat for trying to put these special 
projects, pork projects into bills. And so what's their solution? Well, 
they have come up with a solution.
  Before we talk about that solution, it's important to remember what 
they promised. What did this new majority promise? And what they said 
was, We're going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation 
transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night and the 
public and other Members can see what's being done. We need to have 
earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public 
awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on. 
That was Majority Leader Hoyer last fall after the election. That's 
what he said about the earmark process.
  And the now-Speaker said about a year ago, It's the special interest 
earmarks that are ones that go in there in the dark of night. They 
don't want anybody to see, and that nobody does see and then they're 
voted upon. So transparency, yes, by all means, let's subject them all 
to the scrutiny that they deserve and let them compete for the dollar. 
That's now-Speaker Pelosi. That's the statement that she made just a 
little over a year ago.
  What's happened? What's the reality, Mr. Speaker? What's the facts, 
not the opinion, not the Orwellian democracy of, oh, there aren't any 
earmarks in that bill, don't bother looking because there aren't any 
earmarks in that bill? But what's the facts?
  The fact is that after promising this unprecedented openness 
regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, what the majority party, the 
House Democrats, have done, they've moved in exactly the opposite 
direction. As they draw up spending bills, the new appropriations bills 
are coming on line for this new budget year, they're side-stepping the 
rules approved on the very first day that they took power in January 
where they said we need to identify earmarks. Remember those rules, Mr. 
Speaker, where you had to have a list of earmarks? You had to have the 
individual that requested them? Had to make certain that there was 
sunshine?
  Rather than including specific pet projects or grants or contracts in 
the legislation as it's written, this is what's new, Mr. Speaker. 
Democrats are following an order by House Appropriations Committee 
Chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it's too late in 
the process to challenge them. Too late in the process to challenge 
them. Phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.
  Associated Press writer Andrew Taylor said just 2 days ago, After 
promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel 
practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction.
  From an article by Andrew Taylor, the Associated Press of January 3, 
Representative David Obey, who is the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, says that those requests for dams, community grants and 
research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added 
spending measures in the fall. That's when the House and the Senate 
negotiators assemble their final bill. So, as a result, most lawmakers 
will not get the chance to oppose or even identify specific projects as 
wasteful or questionable when the spending bills for various agencies 
get their first vote in the full House this month.
  So what's going to happen, Mr. Speaker, is that instead of this 
wonderful transparency, instead of the sunshine, all the accountability 
that this new majority talked about, in fact what they're doing is 
going way back, way back to an old time long, long ago when these 
special projects were put in late at night with nobody watching, no 
ability to gain accountability for it, no ability to see what's 
happening, no opportunity for average Members of this House of 
Representatives to see and appreciate what's happening in terms of 
spending in the appropriations bills as they go forward.
  The House-Senate compromise bills due for final action in September 
cannot be amended, and it's extremely pivotal because you can't say, 
well, this is a project that we ought to have more discussion on, more 
debate on. So it can't be amended and they're only subject to 1 hour of 
debate.

                              {time}  2300

  It's not just those of us who believe in sunshine for earmarks, 
something that I have fought for a number of years. It's not just those 
of us in the House of Representatives who are concerned. Tom Shatz, the 
President of Citizens Against Government Waste says, ``Who appointed 
him judge and jury of earmarks? What that does is leave out the 
public's input.''
  The article from Mr. Taylor goes on to say what Mr. Obey is doing 
runs counter to new rules. The Democrats promised they would make such 
spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects 
earmarked for Federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made 
available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated. The 
rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a 
written explanation describing their request in a letter certifying 
that they or their spouse wouldn't make any financial gain from them.
  So it's important to appreciate what is happening with this new 
Orwellian democracy, Orwellian majority, is that what we are seeing is 
them saying one thing and then doing something exactly the opposite.
  Again, it's not just those of us on this side of the aisle who 
believe that and have documented that. This is an article from the St. 
Petersburg Times that explains in an editorial, ``The new game that 
House Appropriations Chairman David Obey intends to play with budget 
earmarks this year is worse than the usual hide-and-seek. He's

[[Page 14631]]

taken the whole thing underground, as though he is to be trusted as a 
one-man auditor for congressional pork. If this is to be the new ethic 
the Democrats promised, voters might want to get their ballots back.''
  Something that I have talked about, the American people are paying 
attention, they are watching, and they are disappointed with what they 
see. This new majority talked about taking the Nation in a new 
direction. They have taken it in a new direction, and it has been 
exactly backwards, backwards to a time, as documented or given the 
opinion by the St. Petersburg Times. It's worse than what has happened 
in the past.
  The Las Vegas Review Journal notes that it didn't take long for 
Democrats to break their promise on earmark reform. ``When Democrats 
took control of Congress 4 months back, incoming House Speaker  Nancy 
Pelosi bragged that it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb 
wasteful pork spending by requiring Members to attach their names to 
their earmarks, exposing such waste to the harsh light of public 
scrutiny. She failed to mention this reform would remain in effect for 
little more than the 100 days.''
  Didn't even last that long, because, as we have documented already, 
what has taken place is this process of bypassing or skirting the rules 
by saying, oh, no, there is no earmarks there, when, in fact, there is 
a laundry list as long as your arm in there. That's the fact. That's 
the fact of the matter.
  So while Democrats plot to hide their wasteful spending from the 
American people, our side, House Republicans, will continue to work to 
make the earmark process much more transparent and more accountable; 
and we will work to root out that wasteful spending and balance the 
budget without raising taxes, without raising taxes, which is so 
remarkably important.
  I mentioned that I was home last week, many of us were home in our 
districts last week. That's what I heard, that individuals all across 
my district that I talked to have been concerned about spending. Over 
and over and over they said, we know that you can balance that budget 
without increasing spending and without increasing taxes.
  So when our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about getting 
the fiscal House in order, yet they authorize more spending and they 
increase in their budget taxes by over $400 billion, the largest tax 
increase in the history of our Nation, my folks, the folks in my 
district at home say, well, that just doesn't wash. That's not the kind 
of leadership we want.
  So that new direction, those ballots that that editorial talked 
about, folks getting back, may, in fact, need to occur. And it's a 
wonderful thing to be able to have accountability for Members of 
Congress every 2 years. I believe firmly that the American people are, 
indeed, watching; and they are already tired of what they see on the 
part of this new majority, especially in the area of earmark reform.
  I have been joined by a very good friend from Arizona, who truly is 
the champion of earmark reform, a fellow who has worked tirelessly in 
his time in Congress to bring light and shed light on the egregious 
activity that occurs here in the special project. I am so pleased to 
have my good friend join me, Mr. Flake from Arizona. I look forward to 
your comments.
  Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate you taking the time to bring this important 
issue to light.
  I am the first to admit that our party didn't handle this issue very 
well. We went over about a decade or 12 years, depending on how you 
count them, from about 1,400 earmarks in all appropriation bills to 
more than 15,000. So the process exploded with Republicans in charge. 
That doesn't speak well for us as a party. We should not have let that 
happen.
  I think right here near the end we woke up, and we passed some 
legislation in October of last year. Unfortunately, I think it was near 
the end of the appropriation process, when it was really too late to do 
any good.
  The Democrats, to their credit, when they came into power in January 
of this year, passed a little stronger legislation than I think we did, 
and I think I and many of my colleagues gave them credit for that. It 
was a good thing to add more transparency to the earmark process.
  The problem, as the gentleman from Georgia has so aptly pointed out, 
is that the rules that we set are only as good as our willingness to 
enforce them. So you can have pretty good rules with regard to earmark 
reform, with regard to transparency, but unless you are willing to 
enforce them, they are of little worth.
  As the gentleman pointed out, when you have rules that allow the 
chairman of the committee to simply make a declaration that there are 
no earmarks in this bill, when there clearly are, we have no recourse. 
We have to accept that statement as if it were fact, when it clearly 
isn't.
  The gentleman mentioned the war supplemental that came up. We 
actually had an example where there was a press release of one Member 
actually claiming credit for an earmark that had been received for that 
Members' district, put out a press release touting it. Yet, for that 
same bill, there was a statement in the Record saying there are no 
earmarks in this bill.
  So, the gentleman mentioned, it was like a fairy tale. I think it's a 
lot like Alice in Wonderland, where you say a word has whatever meaning 
I give to it; and, in this case, you know, an earmark is whatever I 
pretend to call it. Unfortunately, that doesn't lend itself to 
transparency.
  We have the situation now, which is far worse than anything we have 
heard before, that we won't have any earmarks in the House bills, but, 
rather, we will wait until the House bill is done, the Senate bill is 
done. Then the earmarks will be airdropped into the conference report.
  Now, if that is the case, there is no way for any Member of this body 
to challenge any of those earmarks that come up. There is no way you 
can amend, because you can't do that to a conference report. You have 
to ask yourself, is that more transparency? Is that a better process?
  The Chairman of the Appropriations Committee stated that more time 
was needed to actually scrub these earmarks, to make sure that they are 
proper, and that the committee was undertaking to do that.
  I think, and I think those who have been watching this process will 
agree, that the best way to scrub the process is to let sunlight in to 
allow these earmarks to be made known, to allow the media, the blogging 
community out there, organizations that follow this and other Members 
of this body, to actually see these earmarks and to judge them and to 
determine who is it going to, who is going to benefit from this 
earmark?
  If we are really concerned about scrubbing these earmarks, to make 
sure that they are proper, then let people know about them. Nobody is 
served well if they are kept secret.
  So I commend the gentleman again for bringing this important issue to 
light. I would encourage him to keep up this battle and to make sure 
that earmarks get the sunlight that they deserve. If we want to really 
curb this practice that has gotten out of control, we need to ensure 
that we have more sunlight, not less.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so much for your comments and for 
your good work on this matter. It's an issue that really strikes a 
chord, because it gets to the heart of irresponsible activity and 
irresponsible spending here in Washington.
  So many of our friends back at home just are tired of it. They are 
tired of it. I think that's the message this they sent in November. I 
think that's the message that they sent. It wasn't some of the things 
that our good friends on the other side of the aisle, the message that 
they were sending. The message that they were sending is be responsible 
about your spending.
  I will bet that if you had a referendum last November and you asked 
every single voter who went to the polls, would you think it would be a 
better idea to hide from the American people the special project 
spending that goes on in Congress to a greater degree than currently 
exists, yes or no,

[[Page 14632]]

I bet you couldn't find a soul in this Nation that would support that.
  Mr. FLAKE. Most certainly, I think across the country the taxpayers 
want to know what is going on. I think that they look at the process 
that we have now where Members will submit requests, earmark requests, 
but those requests are only made public if their earmark is actually 
part of a bill that comes to the House.
  Now, under this new procedure that has been announced by the 
majority, those earmark letters, which indicate who the earmark is to 
go to, won't be made public at all until it's too late in the process 
to actually challenge that earmark.
  So it means little to go through the process that we have set up if, 
by the time it has any effect, it's too late in the process to change.
  So the gentleman is correct, I think. Across the country, that's what 
I hear when I am out there. People want to know. They want open 
government.
  When you think about it, every second that this Chamber is in session 
is captured on C-SPAN, this conversation and every other conversation, 
whenever this body is in session. When we are in committee, every word 
that is said is transcribed and is captured. So we have an open 
process.
  Yet when it comes to spending money, we have a very secretive process 
in terms of earmarks, where, according to the majority this year, we 
won't know it all until it's too late to actually change it, until we 
have to just do one up and down, up or down vote on a bill.
  There are several bills in the past, in fact, one bill, the highway 
bill a couple of years ago, that had 6,300 earmarks in the bill. You 
could conceivably have that again. At least, you know, virtually every 
appropriation bill is up somewhere approaching 1,000 or maybe 2,500. 
So, think of that, 2,500 earmarks in a single bill. The Members here 
won't even have the ability to challenge one of those, won't even know 
that they are there until you have to have to take one up or down vote 
on that legislation. I think every American knows that that simply is 
wrong.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. That really brings to light the issue of 
accountability, what your constituents want. I know what my 
constituents want me to do is to make certain that I am paying 
attention to all of these items and that I raise questions about items 
that I believe they would not support.
  Sometimes just a question of clarification, I have been so pleased to 
be able to support you in many of your efforts to shed light on so many 
earmarks that have been brought to the floor, and maybe you wouldn't 
mind sharing with our colleagues the process that that takes and how to 
get just one vote on a specific earmark and how this process would foil 
all of that and make it so that there would be no transparency at all.
  Mr. FLAKE. Over the appropriation process last summer, I believe we 
brought 39 earmarks in several appropriation bills to the floor; and my 
effort was, in many cases, simply to see whose earmark this was and to 
have that Member actually justify the need for that earmark.
  We simply didn't know who requested it. We saw it in the committee 
report. When the bill came to the floor, it would generally be a vague 
description of an earmark to a certain entity or a company. But you 
wouldn't know who actually sponsored the earmark until you challenged 
it on the floor. Then, typically, the author of that earmark would come 
to defend it, but not always.
  I should mention that many of the earmarks that were challenged on 
the floor in the last appropriation cycle, the author of the earmark 
never even came to the floor to defend it. He or she simply knew that, 
through the process of log rolling, that other Members would know I 
won't challenge that earmark and the author of that earmark won't 
challenge mine.
  So it was a very disheartening process to go through. But at least we 
could go through that process. At least we knew something about what 
was in the bill, because we had the reports come to the floor. Under 
the process that has been announced, we wouldn't even have that 
ability.

                              {time}  2315

  These bills would come to the floor, there would be no earmark, there 
would be no letters attached saying there are this many earmarks. There 
would be no lists listing the Members who had requested earmarks. 
Nothing. We would simply have to wait until it was too late in the 
process to actually challenge until the earmarks were air dropped into 
the conference report. So it's an important distinction.
  I think the process has been far too secretive in the past. We would 
typically only get these lists in the committee reports hours before 
the bill actually came to the floor. But that's miles better than what 
is being discussed now because these earmarks would not be made known 
at all until it's too late. They would be kept secret from the body as 
a whole, and from the taxpayers across the country.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank you again for your comments.
  And I think it's important, Mr. Speaker, for our colleagues to 
appreciate that this is a proposed process that is being put in place 
by the majority party to correct what they have perceived as a lack of 
transparency and a lack of accountability. But their solution will 
result in less accountability and less transparency. And as I mentioned 
before, I don't think that's what the American people want. It 
certainly isn't what my constituents want, and it's not what you fought 
for for years and years to have greater transparency and greater 
accountability to the whole special project earmarking process.
  Does the gentleman have any more comments?
  Mr. FLAKE. Well, I just again thank the gentleman. And just to 
reiterate again, we have had a bad process. We recognize that. That was 
the reason for the reforms that we did in the fall of last year. And as 
I mentioned, I applauded the Democrats for the reforms that they put in 
place in January. The problem is we're running away from those reforms 
rather fast. And if we are really serious about bringing in sunlight 
and transparency, then we have to stop this proposed new rule, or this 
proposed process I should say, it's not a formal rule, to make sure 
that these earmarks get the sunlight that they deserve, that every 
member of this body and every taxpayer across the country has a chance 
to see what this body is doing. That's what open government is all 
about. And I, again, thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Thank you so very much. I appreciate you coming 
and joining us this evening.
  So folks say well, what is it that you're asking for? Well I've 
talked about American values and American vision. And what we believe, 
what I believe Americans are asking for in this instance is open and 
honest leadership. It's what we oftentimes here in Washington give lip 
service to. But the fact of the matter is that the American people 
desire and I believe are demanding open and honest leadership. I 
believe, we believe that they have a right to transparent and fair 
legislative process. And the process that has been described for 
dealing with these earmarks, these special projects, these pork 
projects is neither transparent nor is it fair because it puts, it's 
not transparent because there's no light on it. There's no sunlight. 
There's no ability for, as my good friend from Arizona said, there's no 
ability for anybody to know who's asking for these earmarks during the 
process. And then there's no way for the House to work its will on an 
individual special project as to vote them up or down. Maybe thousands, 
literally thousands of them included in a particular bill. So that's 
not a transparent process. It's not a fair process because it 
concentrates power into the hands of too few individuals, the chairman 
of Appropriations or the subcommittee chairmen on Appropriations.
  We believe that Americans have a right to sunshine on how taxpayer 
money is spent. That again gets to the transparency. You ought to shed 
light on it. How does this process work?

[[Page 14633]]

Who's asking for the money? And so that they have to stand up and 
defend it in front of their constituents, in front of their colleagues 
and in front of the media, in front of the press.
  And finally, that Americans have a right to merit based spending 
that's open to the public debate and open to public scrutiny.
  Those are principles that I believe, we believe incorporate American 
values and an American vision that individuals all across this Nation 
have as the kind of vision for their government, how they believe their 
government ought to act.
  Again, in November, if one had asked on everybody's ballot across 
this Nation, do you think that there ought to be less transparency, 
that there ought to be less accountability for special projects in 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, I'll bet you wouldn't have got 1 percent of the 
people across this Nation to vote in favor of that. Not one. So what 
we're asking for is accountability, is transparency.
  I think it's also important, again, to appreciate that there are 
others across this Nation who are concerned and dismayed by this 
process proposal that's been put forward by the new majority party. And 
I'd just like to highlight some of them, because I think it's important 
for folks to appreciate that this isn't just your usual political 
backbiting. This is serious business. This is how we're spending hard 
earned American taxpayer money. And the proposal is such that I 
believe, we believe, that it would be much less responsible, certainly 
much less transparent and much less accountable, and there are folks 
who believe that all across this Nation.
  As I mentioned, the editorial in the St. Petersburg Times, one of the 
lines there said, ``The result then is that the earmark projects will 
receive almost no public scrutiny and no Congressional debate.'' 
Significant, major paper in an editorial today.
  The Review Journal in Las Vegas, the Las Vegas Review Journal said, 
``Democrat earmark reforms lasted 100 days. When Democrats took control 
of Congress just 4 months back, incoming House Speaker  Nancy Pelosi of 
California bragged that it would take her party less than 100 hours to 
curb wasteful pork spending by requiring Members to attach their names 
to their earmarks exposing such waste to the harsh light of public 
scrutiny. She failed to mention that this reform would remain in effect 
for little more than 100 days. The anti-earmark reforms are just for 
show, mere window dressing.'' That's the Las Vegas Review and Journal 
from an editorial today.
  There is a gentleman on CNN, Mr. Cafferty, Jack Cafferty, who has had 
a lot to say about Washington spending. Yesterday he said, ``Remember 
when the Democrats took control of the Congress back in January? On 
their very first day in power they approved rules to clearly identify 
so-called pet projects or earmarks in spending bills. You know, part of 
their promise to bring openness and transparency to government. Well, 
guess what? The Associated Press reports Democrats are not including 
the spending requests in legislation as it's being written. Instead 
they're following an order from the House Appropriations Committee 
Chairman David Obey to keep the bills free of these earmarks until the 
fall. Now, by doing this, nobody will know what the earmarks are when 
the bills are first voted on in June. And when they're finally 
announced in the fall, well, then it will be virtually too late to do 
anything about them. Clever, don't you think?'' That comes from CNN's 
Jack Cafferty, June 4, yesterday.
  And so it's people all across this Nation who are concerned about the 
process that's been defined. The Toledo Blade, newspaper in Toledo, 
Ohio, in an editorial a little over a week ago, said, ``Backtracking on 
earmarks. Here's the outrage of the week from Washington. Democrats who 
took control of Congress by pledging reform and whacking Republicans 
over the issue of special interest earmarks already are perpetuating 
this odious waste of taxpayer money. Democrats promised to end such 
abuses. Now that they are in charge, they should live up to their 
rhetoric.'' That's an editorial in the Toledo Blade a little over a 
week ago.
  From Montana, the Missoulian in Montana said, ``Congressional pork 
too tasty to leave alone. Congress is ignoring election promises and 
feasting on pork projects. What's on the menu on Capital Hill these 
days? Pork of course. Not that we're surprised, but we're scratching 
our heads given the promises and pronouncements of the last election 
season. In their first half year in office, the newly powerful House 
Democrats have seemingly lost their reformist zeal.'' Editorial from 
the Missoulian Montana this May 31 of this year.
  How about Pennsylvania? Reading, Pennsylvania, the Reading Eagle in 
Pennsylvania said, ``Democratic vows remain unfulfilled. They can talk 
the talk but they seem to have difficulty walking the walk. As the 
approval ratings of Republicans plummeted prior to last November's 
general election, Democrats saw their chance to regain Congressional 
control. Representative Nancy Pelosi, who was soon to become Speaker of 
the House, said, `We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical and 
open Congress in history.' That pledge,'' this is now from the Reading 
Eagle, from Reading, Pennsylvania. ``That pledge was broken in March 
when democratic leaders pushed through a $124 billion emergency 
supplemental bill to fund the military in Iraq and Afghanistan that was 
laden with $21 billion in pork barrel spending known as earmarks. A 
House rule instituted by Democrats that prohibits swapping earmarks for 
votes also seems to have fallen by the wayside.''
  In fact, that brings up a specific point that is of grave concern to 
many of us. We highlighted on our side of the aisle a member of the 
Appropriations Committee who challenged and literally threatened a 
Member of the minority party, Republican Member, with saying that if he 
didn't support a certain bill, a certain provision, that his earmarks 
would be pulled from the appropriations bill. And it happened on the 
floor of the House. Many people witnessed it. And what did the new 
majority, when that was brought to light, what did they do with that 
complaint, with that concern, with that issue?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, and you remember, they moved to table 
the motion, the resolution that would have simply required an 
investigation of that process. And tabling, as you know, Mr. Speaker, 
means that it kills the issue. It's dead. So the majority party wielded 
their muscle and made certain that an individual who is in the 
majority, who is muscling another Member of the House of 
Representatives and threatening to withhold certain funds from a bill 
because he wouldn't support another provision, that will go 
uninvestigated. That will just be tossed under the rug, swept under the 
rug. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the kind of United States House of 
Representatives that Americans desire or that they deserve.
  Further, a couple of others, Mr. Speaker, of objective individuals 
citing their concern about this new process for spending on the part of 
our new majority. CNN investigative reporter Drew Griffin said on May 
25, ``The new open Democratic Party-controlled Congress promised the 
earmark process would no longer be secret. All earmark requests are 
made public with plenty of time for debate. But David Obey, the 
chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and one of those 
Democrats bragging about those changes, has decided that earmarks, 
those generous gifts of your money, will be inserted into bills only 
after the bill has cleared the House floor. In other words, earmarks 
will still be done in secret with no public debate. There was supposed 
to be some kind of change. In the next few months, in what Congressman 
Obey says is the most open earmark process ever, the bills will be 
drafted, the earmarks added. But only then, just before those bills are 
passed, will the public learn where the treasure is buried.''
  Mr. Speaker, that's not the kind of process that my constituents 
desire. That's not the kind of process that they voted for. It's not 
the kind of process that we've proposed. It's not

[[Page 14634]]

the kind of process that is becoming of a House, especially when the 
majority party says that they are desirous of getting this fiscal house 
in order. It's more of that Orwellian democracy. Just because you say 
it doesn't make it so.
  Associated Press on June 3 said, ``After promising unprecedented 
openness regarding Congress's pork barrel practices House Democrats are 
moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the 
upcoming budget's year. Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their 
first day in power to clearly identify earmarks, lawmakers' requests 
for special projects, and contracts for their states in the documents 
that accompany spending bills.''
  And finally, CNN's Drew Griffin said on May 31, ``Thousands of pages 
of earmarks in a bill time after time, and the Democrats promised 
reform and it's not happening.''
  Mr. Speaker, what a shame. Truly what a shame. What a great 
opportunity we have to work together and fashion a system and a process 
that provides greater transparency, that provides greater openness, 
that answers the concerns of our constituents who say we want to make 
certain that there's sunshine on this process. We want to make certain 
that folks are held accountable. We want to make certain that our hard 
earned tax money that's going to Washington is being spent in the most 
responsible fashion.
  And so what is it that we desire? Open and honest leadership, Mr. 
Speaker. Americans have a right to transparent and fair legislative 
process. They have a right to sunshine on how taxpayer money is spent. 
They have a right to merit based spending that's open to public debate 
and to public scrutiny.
  So I would ask my colleagues, I would challenge my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to talk to their leadership, to implore them to 
urge them to move in the direction that they said they would move and 
that is greater transparency and greater openness and greater scrutiny 
of how these public monies are being spent.

                              {time}  2330

  So all is not lost. This is recoverable. I know that the chairman of 
the Appropriations Committee said that it would be so, but this is a 
435-Member body, and it ought to act in a majority fashion, and I am 
hopeful that at least some members of the majority party will see that 
that is not the kind of leadership and not the kind of process that 
their constituents desire.
  Mr. Speaker, before I close this evening, I do want to touch on one 
other item very briefly, because I know that time is getting late, and 
that is the whole issue of taxes and spending.
  As I mentioned, I was home this past week in the district over the 
Memorial Day break. And person after person, constituent after 
constituent kept coming up to me and talking about issue after issue, 
and one of the major issues was spending, spending in Washington, and 
taxes, making certain that tax money was being spent responsibly and 
that taxes didn't go up, which was why it was so concerning to them 
that this new majority has increased the authorization for spending 
already, in just 5 months, by over $50 billion; also why it was 
concerning to them that this new majority has passed a budget that 
incorporates $400 billion in new taxes. The largest tax increase in the 
history of the Nation, $400 billion. Phenomenal, absolutely phenomenal.
  So when you think about how our economy has been relatively rolling 
along over the past number of months, over 16, 17, 18 quarters of 
growth in a row; more homeownership than ever before in the history of 
the Nation; the unemployment rate at its lowest continual rate in 
decades, lower than the average of the 1960s and the 1970s and the 
1980s and the 1990s; remarkable success in terms of an economy that is 
performing extremely well, one would think that it would behoove the 
majority party to say, well, I wonder how that happened. I wonder how 
that economy got to be so strong.
  There are issues and points in time that you can recognize and point 
to and say there were changes made then that resulted in a very strong 
economy, and one of them occurred in 2003. This graph highlights it. 
These are tax revenues coming into the Federal Government.
  And, Mr. Speaker, as you know, between 2000 and 2003, Federal tax 
revenue was declining. We had been hit by some significant challenges, 
9/11, a recession, the tech dot com boom burst, and so tax revenue was 
decreasing. So what happened in 2003, whatever this was, whatever 
happened on this vertical line here at that point in time, it resulted 
in significant increases to the Federal Government tax revenue because 
of a significant increase in the economy, a significant increase in 
productivity.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, as you know, what happened at that time was that 
appropriate tax reductions were put in place. Fair tax cuts for the 
American people were put in place so that the marginal rates were 
decreased for everybody, so that there was a decrease in capital gains 
and dividends tax, a decrease over a period of time in the marriage 
penalty and the death penalty. All of those appropriate tax reductions 
were decreased.
  Tax cuts result in more economic activity and more economic growth. 
It sounds counterintuitive, but, in fact, it happens every single time 
that you cut taxes. If you cut taxes, if you give the American people 
more of their hard-earned money, what they do is they determine when 
they save or they spend or they invest that money, and that results in 
a flourishing, increasing economic development and an increasing 
economic activity in our Nation, and it is undeniable what happened.
  There is another graph that demonstrates it, that talks about jobs 
growth. Here you have a number of jobs created on the horizontal line 
from 2001 through 2007, and you see again, Mr. Speaker, before the 
appropriate tax reductions in 2003, what happened was a relative 
decrease in job growth, month after month after month after month. And 
what happened with the tax cuts on the American people, allowing people 
to keep more of their hard-earned tax money, what happens is an 
incredible increase in job growth, and that is why we have seen over 7 
million new jobs created since August of 2003. Incredible economic 
activity.
  So it astounds me that the majority party believes somehow that if 
they increase taxes, again by passing a budget that has the largest tax 
increase in the history of the Nation, nearly $400 billion in increased 
taxes to Americans, almost $2,700 for every single Georgian, a 
phenomenal increase in taxes, it is incomprehensible to try to 
understand why the majority party believes that that is the appropriate 
kind of policy to put in place if they want to continue this kind of 
activity.
  If they wanted to continue this kind of activity, one would think 
that they would conclude appropriately, objectively, looking at the 
facts, that the appropriate tax reductions ought to continue. But what 
they have said is, no, they ought not continue, that those marginal 
rates ought to go up, that we ought to increase taxes on every single 
American who pays taxes, that we ought to increase the marriage 
penalty, that we ought to do away with the decreases in death tax, that 
we ought to have increases in taxes on capital gains and dividends and 
we ought to decrease the incentive for investment. It just doesn't make 
sense.
  I know that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
responsible. I know that they desire to do the right thing. I know that 
they have heard from their constituents back home, and I suspect what 
they have heard is please make certain that we continue an economy that 
allows our Nation to grow, that allows our Nation to defend itself, 
that allows our Nation to create jobs, that allows our communities to 
thrive. And one way to do that, one of the most effective ways to do 
that, is the way that it has happened every single time that it has 
been tried in our Nation's history, and that is to decrease taxes on 
the American people. Allow Americans to keep more of their hard-earned 
money. Allow them to be

[[Page 14635]]

the ones who determine when they spend or they save or they invest 
their money.
  So I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to take a good 
look at what has happened. Take a good look at history. Take a good 
look at the remarkable economic growth and development that we have had 
across this Nation over the past 3 to 4 years. And I think what you 
will conclude, Mr. Speaker, is that those tax reductions ought to 
remain in place.
  We live in an incredible Nation, a Nation that allows those of us who 
represent districts all across this Nation to come to the House of 
Representatives and to try our best as honestly and openly as we can to 
represent our constituents. It is a wonderful Nation. It is a beacon of 
hope and liberty for folks all around the world, and it is so because 
we are responsible when we act responsibly and we listen to our 
constituents and we decide issues based upon what their desires are and 
what is in the best interest of them and our Nation.
  So I call on my colleagues to think seriously about the issues as 
they relate to taxes and economic development of our Nation. And I know 
that they will conclude what I have concluded; and that is decreasing 
taxes results in increasing economic development, increasing economic 
activity, and, amazingly enough, increasing revenue to the Federal 
Treasury.

                          ____________________