[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 19]
[House]
[Pages 26678-26681]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION FINANCING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, and I'm proud to be on the 
floor this afternoon to talk about some issues that are very important 
to me and I think very important to most Members of this body and 
certainly to the American public.
  Just a few minutes ago, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), a 
very well, well respected, fine Member of this body, did a 5-minute 
talking about the problem with Presidential election financing. And I 
think her comments, Mr. Speaker, were so compelling that indeed people, 
our guests in the gallery, when she completed her remarks, broke out in 
spontaneous applause. Maybe they knew that they shouldn't, or maybe 
they didn't know, but, you know, they were responding to something that 
they heard that they liked. And certainly, I can understand that. Folks 
do that every now and then. I almost felt like applauding Ms. Kaptur as 
well because she was speaking the truth and bringing our attention to a 
real problem.
  I used to enjoy so much going around the district, Mr. Speaker, and 
talking to school children, whether they were at the elementary, middle 
or high school level, and saying to them, of course, they'd always ask, 
Well, Congressman Gingrey, what's your favorite issue or what is your 
favorite thing that you do as a Member of Congress?

[[Page 26679]]

And I would say to them, what I'm doing right now; what I'm doing right 
now, speaking to young people to try to inspire them. And heretofore I 
would say to them, the great, one of the great things about our country 
is anybody in America can grow up to be President. It doesn't matter 
who you are or what your background. Anybody in this great country of 
the United States of America can grow up to be President.
  Sadly, today, that's probably not true, and I think that's what Ms. 
Kaptur was trying to point out. There's just something wrong in River 
City with all these hundreds of millions of dollars that have to be 
raised for a candidate of either party, the two major political 
parties, to have a chance to, yes, be grown up now and have an 
opportunity to become President. There are many people that are very 
qualified, I think, that would make a great President, man or woman, 
white or black, it doesn't matter where you come from, your meager 
beginnings possibly. But you don't have that chance because of what she 
was pointing out.
  And by the way, Mr. Speaker, I want to digress just for a moment. 
Speaking of young people, I don't think we take enough time to thank 
our young men and women, our young students, our pages that work in 
this body and in the other body, in the House and the Senate, on behalf 
of Members of Congress. And usually the pages are here at the request 
of a Member. And this young man that's here on the floor tonight put 
these posters up for me and made sure that I've got a cup of water in 
case my mouth gets a little dry, as we continue to speak over these 
next 30 to 45 minutes. I think we just owe them a lot of thanks. What 
they do is much more, of course, than these tasks. And this young man, 
Edward White, Mr. Speaker, is from Atlanta, Georgia. I'm from the 
metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area. I represent northwest Georgia. He's 
here through Congressman John Lewis, the dean of the Georgia 
delegation, his office. And I just want to take an opportunity to thank 
him and all the young men and women that help us so much and don't get 
as much credit as they should.

                              {time}  1615

  But my purpose of this hour was to bring to my colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker, another issue which has gotten completely out of control. And, 
yes, it has to do with spending, kind of on the theme that Ms. Kaptur 
brought to us in regard to Presidential elections, and that is the 
issue of earmarks.
  Now, the general public, I think, is fed up with so-called earmark 
abuse. Sometimes we euphemistically will refer to those as ``Member 
initiatives.'' Some people, of course, don't like that term and they 
will call it ``pork.'' But the situation is getting completely out of 
hand, and that's what I want to talk about primarily in the next 30 
minutes or so, Mr. Speaker.
  We can solve this problem. We have got a problem, and it is not 
unique to the Republican Party. It is not unique to the Democratic 
Party. I know some of my colleagues, hopefully, who are watching us 
during this time and maybe the general public is aware of an article 
just this past week. And I hold up the magazine, Mr. Speaker, it is 
known as ``CQ Weekly.'' This magazine comes out every week. I know that 
it's difficult for Members in the back rows of the Chamber to see the 
magazine that I'm holding up. Maybe the cameras can focus in on that. 
But basically the title of this article, and there are several articles 
written about the problem, is ``Playing the Earmark Game.'' ``Playing 
the Earmark Game.''
  Let me reference here in just a second my first slide, this poster to 
my left, to show you what I'm talking about.
  Now, what is an earmark? Well, an earmark is when a Member of a 
congressional district sees a need among those 670,000 people that he 
or she represents. Possibly a school system or a county commissioner or 
just an individual, or maybe it's a Head Start program, has brought an 
issue to that Member, Mr. Speaker, and says, We have a great need, 
Congressman or Congresswoman, in our district. You represent us. We 
voted for you. We have great confidence in you. But our community has a 
desperate need, and I want you to ask the Federal Government to try to 
help us in the funding process.
  Well, when the Member looks at that and decides that that is a very 
worthwhile project and then sort of applies to the appropriators, 
that's called an earmark. And it could be a very, very good, worthy 
project. It could be a sewer project, to help a community to redevelop 
to get themselves back on their feet, and that is an earmark, but 
that's not bad. And that is when I would say this is a Member 
initiative and it is an appropriate thing to do.
  But, unfortunately, as this magazine so clearly points out, this 
process is ripe with the potential for abuse. Just like Ms. Kaptur was 
talking about in regard to the financing of Presidential elections and 
that money chase. It is absolutely ripe, this earmarking opportunity or 
Member initiative, it is so ripe for abuse.
  And let me ask my colleagues to reflect on this first chart, this 
first slide, for just a minute. And this is from the Citizens Against 
Government Waste, a watchdog group. Thank God for watchdog groups. 
Citizens Against Government Waste calls this slide pork barrel 
spending. Pork barrel spending or earmarks or Member initiatives, if 
you like. Pork barrel spending, 1995 to 2007, this year.
  My colleagues and Mr. Speaker, this is the total amount for the House 
and the Senate, 535 Members. The total amount in 1995 was $10 billion. 
You can say that that is a very small percentage of the overall world 
of discretionary spending or the total budget, which includes, of 
course, Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid and all the 
entitlement spending, mandatory spending. But $10 billion out of the 
discretionary amount. Well, over these 12 years, Mr. Speaker, that 
amount has grown until the year 2006 to $29 billion. In 2007 it drops 
down a little bit, but that was an anomaly because we only passed four 
of the 12 spending bills, and the rest of them had no earmarks in them 
when they bundled. But this trend is a steep slope upward, and it is 
getting worse and worse, both in total amount and in the percentage of 
all the discretionary spending that Members of Congress have an 
opportunity to control.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this chart points it out very clearly that this 
spending for earmarks is becoming what I would call runaway spending, 
totally out of control. And, again, the CQ Weekly does such a wonderful 
job of explaining why this process can be so bad. It can be good, and I 
think, and I will talk about that a little later in the hour, with 
meaningful legislation that, hopefully, Members on both sides of the 
aisle, Mr. Speaker, the majority party and the minority party, can look 
at this and say, you know, Congressman Gingrey, you are absolutely 
right. We're getting sick and tired of picking up the newspaper almost 
weekly and seeing yet another Member of this august body who has this 
tremendous privilege, Mr. Speaker, to represent 670,000 for the House 
Members and an entire State for the Senators. What a privilege. What an 
honor. But you pick up that newspaper, and the names are people where 
you say, That's one of our best Members. That is a guy or that is a 
lady that I have known for the last 5 or 6 years, and whether she be a 
Republican or a Democrat, and you think, I just can't believe this. I 
can't believe that that Member would be doing anything that potentially 
is dishonest.
  Now, sometimes these newspaper articles are not a court of law and 
you have to take some of that with a grain of salt. But I am telling 
you, when you look into that, Mr. Speaker, and you read and you kind of 
connect the dots, and they are fairly easy to connect, you start 
thinking if it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck and it quacks 
like a duck, it may well be a duck. So we have got a problem. We have a 
problem that we can correct, and I think I have got a solution.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the solutions that Members have talked 
about, and the gentleman from Arizona in particular, Representative 
Jeff Flake, one of my colleagues, has talked about

[[Page 26680]]

this, about why don't we just absolutely eliminate, totally eliminate, 
all earmarks? In fact, I have got another slide, and I think I will 
reference that in just a second because this is certainly the 
appropriate time. Another Member on the majority side of the aisle has 
virtually said the same thing. Let me show you a quote, as we put up 
that second slide.
  Colleagues, I want you to look at this poster, this second slide, if 
you will. I referenced Mr. Flake of Arizona, but here is another 
Member. And I will read it for you because it is very difficult to see 
in the back of the Chamber, and I understand that. The printing is 
small. And here is what it says, and this was a quote from last year in 
the Wall Street Journal, in fact:
  ``If she were to become Speaker in the next Congress, Pelosi said she 
would press to severely reduce earmarks.''
  And then here's the quote:
  ``Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them.'' Then the quote 
begins again. She says, ``None of them is worth the skepticism, the 
cynicism the public has, and the fiscal responsibility of it.''
  Now, I want to repeat this. Mr. Speaker, bear with me because I think 
this definitely needs repeating because it is really what Ms. Kaptur 
said just a few minutes ago in regard to the Presidential fundraising 
activities, and she got, I guess, what you would call a standing 
ovation for her remarks.
  ``Pelosi said she would press to severely reduce earmarks. 
`Personally, myself, I'd get rid of all of them. None of them is worth 
the skepticism, the cynicism the public has, and the fiscal 
irresponsibility of it.''' Virtually the same thing that my colleague 
from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has said in this body, Mr. Speaker, on 
numerous occasions.
  And yet, Speaker Pelosi is on track this year to take home $100 
million, more than 1 percent of all the House earmarks. And I am not 
standing here, Mr. Speaker, suggesting that those Member initiatives on 
behalf of the Speaker or anybody else, any other Member of this body, 
is for anything but the most worthy projects in her district, and I'm 
sure that that is the case. I am sure that every one of those Member 
requests on behalf of Speaker Pelosi would pass anybody's smell test 
and would survive any kind of challenge to strike them if a Member 
wanted to do that on this floor, and a Member can do that and then we 
have a fair and open vote on it. No, I am not suggesting any such 
thing, and I have great respect for the Speaker.
  But as this article points out so clearly, everybody in this process 
of being able to get earmarks for their district, all Members are not 
treated equally. I can't remember the exact quote from ``Animal Farm,'' 
but you know what I am referring to. All Members definitely are not 
treated equally. That $29 billion worth of earmarks, it's not divided 
equally. If you look at it and you look at it very carefully, as CQ 
Weekly has done, and nobody in this Chamber, I think, Mr. Speaker, can 
deny this, you will see that members of the Appropriations Committee, 
that is about 65, it is a very selective committee. Most Members want 
to get on that very powerful committee. They do a lot of great work and 
it is a nice position to be in. But when you look at each Member, as 
they have done in CQ Weekly, and you see the discrepancy where some 
Members may get an opportunity to bring home $6 or $7 million to their 
district and other Members get an opportunity to bring home $180 
million to their district or $100 million to their district, and as you 
look at it very carefully, it would seem that the members of the 
Appropriations Committee certainly get favored treatment. The members 
of the leadership certainly get favored treatment. Members that have 
been here for a long time who maybe are committee chairmen or 
chairwomen get favored treatment. And the last favored group, Mr. 
Speaker, are those Members who are representing districts where it is 
very competitive and they won by a very narrow margin, maybe literally 
by the skin of their teeth, and they are up for another re-election 
where it is going to be really tough.

                              {time}  1630

  So no matter which party is in control, Republicans do this, the 
Democrats do this, you let that Member get more opportunities, a bigger 
bite of the apple, if you will, to give the impression to the folks 
back home that they've elected the right person; we've got a Member who 
really can deliver this pork back home. They might rail against 
everybody else's pork, but that which is brought home by their Member, 
Mr. Speaker, is welcomed. So this is the way this process goes.
  On the other hand, a rank-and-file Member, let's say a Member of what 
we might refer to pejoratively as the ``obscure caucus,'' who 
represents a district where they are absolutely having no challenge, no 
difficulty getting re-elected, maybe their district is inner city and 
it's been gerrymandered and drawn for them so that no Member of the 
other party has any opportunity to win that congressional seat. So 
they're in what we call, and we all know this, my colleagues, they're 
in what we call a ``safe district.'' They don't have to worry about re-
election. Hopefully, they're doing constituent services and they're 
representing their people well in the way they vote, but they really 
don't have to worry about a political challenge.
  So when you look in this magazine, and you look at this article in 
regard to the fairness issue, you find that they are the ones that get 
the least amount. And yet in many instances, Mr. Speaker, they are 
representing districts, maybe an inner-city district, a poor district, 
a district that has a very poor tax base, it has a decaying 
infrastructure, it doesn't have a good water and sewage system in a 
certain part of the district, and they are the ones that need help more 
than anybody. And yet the way this game is played up here, they're at 
the back of the line in regard to what they can bring home to their 
district. I think many times Members don't complain about that because 
they're afraid if they complain, they'll get nothing. You know, it's a 
little dangerous to complain.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I come here this hour and talk about this, yeah, 
with a little bit of trepidation. Have I, as Congressman Gingrey, who 
represents the 11th Congressional District of northwest Georgia, have I 
ever asked for a Member initiative? Absolutely. And I've been able to 
deliver on occasion, not always; most of these requests are turned 
back. But if it really has merit, yes, I have. And I hope, as I spend 
this time on the floor talking about this issue that's so problematic, 
that there won't be any reprisals or repercussions because of that. 
Because I'm trying to do it, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way with a 
spirit of cooperation and wanting to do as Ms. Kaptur was wanting to do 
in regard to Presidential election financing, do what's right for this 
Congress, do what's right for this body.
  So here is my proposal: we have introduced legislation, and it's 
called the Earmark Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 3738. We just introduced it 
today; we had a press conference on it today. I was very, very pleased 
to be joined with two of my colleagues at the press conference, the 
chairman of the Republican Study Committee, Mr. Hensarling of Texas, 
and my good friend and classmate, the gentleman from New Jersey, 
Representative Scott Garrett.
  And here is what I would do, Mr. Speaker: I would immediately say to 
the American public, we are going to slash these so-called ``earmarks'' 
in half for the next fiscal year. We're going to drop the number down 
from $29 billion to $14.5 billion. And then we're going to simply 
divide that number by the total membership of the Congress, the House 
and the Senate, and that's 535 Members, 435 here, 100 in the Senate. 
And when you do that division, you come up with a number of $27 
million.
  And you would say to each Member, Mr. Speaker, in this bill, you 
would say, you have an opportunity to look in your district, and if you 
want to ask for and receive money from the John Q. Public hardworking 
taxpayer to fund this project in your district, you're going to be 
limited to this amount in the first year of this legislation to $27 
million. That means the most powerful

[[Page 26681]]

Member of this body, the most powerful Member of leadership, the most 
senior Member of this body is not going to be able to get $180 million 
worth of earmarks while the Members who represent districts that are 
most in need end up with maybe 3 or $4 million. Each Member has an 
opportunity, then, to ask for and receive the exact same amount. 
Because, after all, Mr. Speaker, think about it, we represent 670,000 
people, approximately, each Member. You know, they have the same need. 
And if we're going to do Member initiatives, it ought to be fair and 
evenly balanced, and that's basically what this bill does.
  You know, if a Member like Mr. Flake or like Ms. Pelosi, as she was 
quoted in the Wall Street Journal last year, decides, you know, I don't 
like this process, I think it's inherently wrong, and it has the 
potential for massive abuse, and as she says, None of them is worth the 
skepticism, the cynicism the public has for them, and the fiscal 
irresponsibility, then if Mr. Flake or Ms. Pelosi said, you know, I 
don't want any earmarks for my district, let them apply for grants 
through the normal process, I will help them, my office will help them, 
Mr. Speaker, and try to show them how to write a grant if they don't 
know how to do it, but I'm not going to specifically ask for any 
earmarks, then that amount, if it's one Member, $27 million, Mr. 
Speaker, what we would do is subtract that amount from the 302 
Allocation of Discretionary Spending.
  So you would spend $27 million less during that fiscal year because 
that Member said, you know what, I agree with Ms. Pelosi and I agree 
with Mr. Flake and several other Members of this body that it's wrong; 
it has too much potential for corruption. And if we have enough 
Members, let's say you had 10 Members say that, then you're talking 
about $270 million. People could say, well, Congressman Gingrey, you 
know that's a very small portion of the budget; it's just a drop in the 
ocean. Well, $270 million in my district is much more, Mr. Speaker, 
than a little drop in the bucket. It's real money.
  And so, this idea, then, of, first of all, in my bill, immediately 
cutting this number, that number of $29 million in half, and then just 
say let's give every Member the same opportunity, the fairness issue, 
and also let each Member who is philosophically opposed to earmarks, 
give them back to the taxpayer, what a breath of fresh air, I think. 
And then in subsequent years what we would do on this bill, Mr. 
Speaker, is we would say that you can only earmark 1 percent of total 
discretionary spending.
  So that would drop that number $14.5 billion down to $10 billion. And 
when you make that division, you're not talking about $27 million per 
Member, maybe you're only talking about $20 million. And eventually, it 
may be that the Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, will come to the 
conclusion, as Ms. Pelosi did and as Mr. Flake has done consistently, 
and he has, indeed, put his money where his mouth is, that maybe more 
and more Members, my colleagues, will say, you know, we don't really 
need this earmarking business. We let people apply for grants and let 
projects get funded on their merit, and Members then don't get tempted 
to have someone come to them and say, you know, I know you're a 
powerful Member, and we've got this little project back home, wherever 
it is, in whomever's district in whatever State, and, oh, by the way 
Congressman, what can we do for you? Can we have a little fund-raiser 
for you? I've got some people back in the district that would love to 
help you, know you're doing a great job for us, and you just get back 
to us and let us know what you want us to do for you; but keep this 
project in mind, it really means a lot to us. And that project may be 
$2 million, it may be $5 million, it may be a $25 million project. So 
that's how this happens, Mr. Speaker. I think Members just sort of fall 
into the trap of all of that.
  What I am trying to do is two things. I'm trying to save money for 
the taxpayer of this great country and stop this runaway spending and 
cut down these budget deficits and reduce this national debt, which is 
approaching $9 trillion; but I'm also trying to keep my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle from becoming corrupted because of a corrupt 
system.
  And that's really what it's all about. That's why I wanted to not 
rush out of here on the last vote and catch the first plane back to 
good ole Georgia, which I'm looking forward to doing maybe tomorrow; 
but I felt like it was important enough to come to the floor and to say 
to all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that I see a better 
way. And I think we can do this in a bipartisan fashion.
  And I will say this, Mr. Speaker, if we can't do it in a bipartisan 
fashion, this Member, this Republican Member, and hopefully his 
colleagues on this side of the aisle, would make a pledge to the 
American people that, you know, we got your message loud and clear in 
November of 2006. We understand why we're no longer in the majority, 
because we lost our fiscal discipline; but we're going to get it back, 
and we're going to start with this.
  And this is not a baby step; this is a giant step. If you feel like 
maybe the better approach would be to totally eliminate earmarks, well, 
maybe we will get there. Maybe Members will see that this can work and 
it will work.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, again, the opportunity to be here on the floor 
to talk to my colleagues, I'm sure I would have some other speakers if 
it were not for the fact that we had our last vote an hour and a half 
ago and Members needed to get home to their district, and work hard, 
and I understand that. But there are a lot of Members that feel very 
strongly about this.
  We have, I think, 25 cosponsors of the legislation, again, H.R. 3738, 
the Earmark Reform Act of 2007. It's an issue, Mr. Speaker, that's not 
going away. And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if next week and the next 
week and the next week we don't hear about more and more Members whose 
action in regard to earmarks is a little questionable. And, you know, 
when you start connecting the dots, in some cases it can become very, 
very questionable.
  So let's try to do the right thing. I'm going to appeal to Members on 
both sides of the aisle to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3738, which 
immediately cuts the total amount of earmark spending in half, and it 
makes sure that no one Member, no matter what party, majority or 
minority, no matter what committee, committee chairman or ranking 
member, no matter how threatened a Member might be politically that you 
want to shore up with these little trinkets of goodies, that's not 
right, that's not the right way. And if we can't do it the right way, 
then I would join Mr. Flake in saying, Let's get rid of all earmarks.
  In the meantime, I think this is not a baby step, as I pointed out, 
indeed, a giant step in the right direction. And if we can't do it 
right with that, then the next step should be, I think, total 
elimination.
  I thank the Speaker and I thank my leadership for giving me this 
opportunity to do this hour. I thank my colleagues for listening, for 
being here, and to try to understand that this is a Member who is not 
overly partisan, who has friends on both sides of the aisle, that wants 
to help all of the Members, but ultimately to get back to helping the 
American taxpayer and to restore fiscal responsibility in this place.
  And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________