[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27525-27531]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        SCHIP AND EARMARK REFORM

  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. Madam Speaker, I thank my leadership for allowing me to 
lead the time during this next hour. And my intention, Madam Speaker 
and my colleagues, is to talk about something that is hugely important 
in this town, in this body, and across this country, and, of course, 
that is the issue of earmarks.
  But, Madam Speaker, before I get to that, I couldn't help but hear my 
colleagues on the other side, the freshmen Democrats, who just spoke 
about the SCHIP program. I will say this, Madam Speaker: they spoke 
well. They spoke in a very articulate manner. I commend them for their 
sense of presence in this body. They are all doing a great job.
  But, Madam Speaker, talking about overstating and being over the top 
on some of the comments that were made that I just heard over this last 
hour listening to my colleagues, it's amazing.
  The gentleman from Minnesota was critical of the President, 
overstating the issue of the SCHIP program in regard to covering 
children from families up to 400 percent of the Federal poverty level. 
I don't necessarily argue with the gentleman over that point. But then 
the doctor from Wisconsin went on to make a comment, and I think I am 
accurate in quoting him. He suggested that the Commander in Chief, the 
President of the United States, went to Iraq over lies. Then he went on 
to say that the country needs more than a President who refuses to obey 
the rule of law.
  Now, you talk about overstatements and embellishing and really 
getting entirely off the subject. So I just want to remind my 
colleagues, let's do indeed stick to the facts.
  The facts, Madam Speaker, in regard to the State of Wisconsin, my 
good friend, the good doctor, the allergist from Wisconsin, I would 
quickly point out to him that in his State, he showed that picture, 
that kind of heart-rendering, tugging-at-your-heart-strings picture of 
the mother and child, the mom, Wendy, and the child, Cassidy, and sort 
of making his point that we need to expand this SCHIP coverage by 140 
percent to cover 6.4 million children that we are covering under the 
current program, but to increase that to over 10 million children.
  Well, not only that, Madam Speaker and my colleagues, but the 
gentleman from Wisconsin, in his State 66 percent of the people that 
are covered under the SCHIP program are the Wendys, not the Cassidys. 
Mom and dad that have maybe one child that are in that income bracket, 
100 to, I think, in Wisconsin it goes up to 180 percent of the Federal 
poverty level. Not only are the children covered but the parents are 
covered as well such that in that State, 66 percent of the total people 
covered are adults, not children at all. And Wisconsin is not the most 
egregious State, Madam Speaker. There are a number of others.
  The State of Minnesota, the gentleman from Minnesota was leading the 
time. I think probably 70 percent in Minnesota are adults.
  And if my colleagues want to come down, I will yield to them if they 
want to dispute those figures and we will talk about it. I would be 
proud to have them interrupt me and get in a colloquy, in fact, about 
this.
  So I am here tonight during this Special Hour, Madam Speaker, to talk 
about earmark reform, and we will get to that. But I think this is just 
really important because this is a historic vote tomorrow. This is a 
historic vote. And colleagues on both sides of the aisle will have an 
opportunity to say do we want to reauthorize a good program, you might 
say even a Republican program with Senators like Senator Hatch back in 
1997 when this program was started. Not an entitlement program, Madam 
Speaker, no. Not an entitlement program. A block grant lasting 10 
years, spending about $1 billion a year on the program to cover 6 
million children. And, yes, we Republicans, we fiscal conservatives, 
and the President of the United States have a compassion, and we 
understand that Biblical

[[Page 27526]]

phrase ``suffer the little children'' that the Speaker likes to use 
over and over again in trying to make her point.
  But we want to make sure that we cover those children that have the 
greatest need, those children between 100 and 200 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. And there are almost 750,000 to 1 million of 
those kids, those children, in those families who have fallen through 
the cracks. The States have not done a good enough job of finding them.
  Madam Speaker, I am very, very proud of my State of Georgia. I 
represent the northwest part of that State, District 11. We have lots 
of children in this program. In fact, in Georgia we are covering about 
280,000 children. And we still are missing a few. But they are not 
children and families making 300 percent of the Federal poverty level. 
That's $63,000 a year. And if you allow that, as this new Democratic 
expansion does, as a matter of routine, and then you also say not only 
do the children, each child in that family, one, two, five, whatever, 
but their parents also get coverage, well, that's why I'm just trying 
to make this point.
  I love my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. These four freshmen 
Democrats are outstanding Members, and they speak very well, as I said. 
They just speak facts that are not factual and they embellish their 
points, and I think that the truth needs to be told on this.
  The truth is that we in the minority now, we want to expand this 
program. We voted for the continuing resolution so that it did not 
expire. We will vote to sustain the President's veto tomorrow because 
we don't need to raise the spending, Madam Speaker, on this bill 140 
percent and cover 4 million additional children.
  I think it was Mr. Walz from Minnesota who had this nice poster 
showing the amount of money that we spend every day, every month in 
Iraq trying to defeat this Islamic extremism, to fight this global war 
on terror, and saying that, well, you know, if we had 37 days' worth of 
spending in Iraq and Afghanistan that we could use on this SCHIP 
program, we could cover 10 million additional children, give them 
health care, dental care, Cadillac coverage. Well, he is right about 
that. There is no doubt we could. And what good would that health care 
coverage for those children do if some Osama bin Laden look-alike came 
into this country and blew them to smithereens?
  So let's get our priorities straight here, my colleagues. Let's get 
our priorities straight. We need to protect the children. We need to 
protect the adults. We need to protect hardworking men and women in 
this country and not let 3,700 of them be slaughtered in a 20-minute 
period of time, in the blink of an eye, because we were not willing to 
defend this country against global terrorism and Islamofascism.
  So this is not a matter of either/or here. And, again, numbers are 
great. You use your statistics and you make your points. But I hope, my 
colleagues and Madam Speaker, that I have made my point well in regard 
to priorities. So let's get this real. Let's sit down with the 
Democratic leadership. The President I know will do that after we 
sustain his veto.
  Hopefully, there will be some Republicans, Madam Speaker, at the 
table. Our colleagues keep talking about the bipartisan bill and they 
keep saying Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch. Well, okay, Senators 
Grassley and Hatch. But we have got, I think, 47 other Republican 
Senators in the other body. And, yes, they may have a few Republicans 
on this side who they have scared into supporting this massive 
expansion.
  But we don't need to do that. The President can sit down with, 
hopefully, our leadership, both Democratic and Republican. Minority 
rights here. Let Mr. Boehner in the room. Let Mr. Barton in. Let Mr. 
Deal in. Let our ranking members from the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. 
McCrery, let them in the room too and sit down with the President, with 
Democratic leadership, with the Senate, with the Republican Senators. 
I'm sure they will be there.
  And say, look, we made a proposal. Initially, the President said we 
are going to expand this program 20 percent. You say it's not enough. 
All right. Well, let's get to the table. Let's leave our guns at the 
door, if you will, Madam Speaker. And maybe it does need to be a 35 
percent increase, possibly even 40 percent. That would increase this 
program over a 5-year period of time by $10 billion. But not $35 
billion when what you cover in those additional 4 million children are 
those whose families are making a pretty darn good income at $63,000 a 
year and they are already on a health insurance program, a private 
health insurance program. But, Madam Speaker, wouldn't you, if you got 
the opportunity to drop your private coverage for your kids and those 
monthly premiums, say, Manna from heaven, we're now going to get on the 
government public trough? Wonderful. Wonderful.

                              {time}  2000

  And I go back to that, talking a little bit in response to, again, my 
physician colleague, I think most of my colleagues know that that was 
my profession, too, before coming to this body. But the doctor from 
Wisconsin was showing those pictures, that picture, again, of Wendy and 
Cassidy. Well, Wendy, if she needs public coverage for her health care, 
should get it under the Medicaid program. But guess what? The State has 
to pay more under the Medicaid program, significantly more, probably, I 
would guess that that's absolutely true in Wisconsin, than on this 
SCHIP program. So it's a better deal, obviously, to cover her under 
SCHIP than under Medicaid if she had a waiver, if Wisconsin had a 
waiver, could cover her income level. You see my colleagues, you get 
it? This is simply a matter of fact, the truth. Maybe sometimes the 
truth hurts, but connect the dots here, connect the dots.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't think the Democratic leadership wanted to give 
the President a bill that he could sign because there's a lot of 
politics in all of this. And there is always, well, you know, ``these 
cruel Republicans.'' These cold-hearted, they don't care about the 
children. They don't care about the veterans. They don't care about the 
hardworking men and women of this country, so let's stick it to the 
rich.'' And of course the rich is anybody making more than $75,000 a 
year.
  So, Mr. Speaker, it wasn't my intention to talk about this, but I 
think you can see, my colleagues, that the previous hour kind of 
stirred me up a little bit, and I wanted to get the facts out there. 
Because this is a historic vote tomorrow, and I plan to vote to sustain 
the President's veto.
  Mr. Speaker, my main purpose tonight in this hour, and I think some 
of my colleagues will be joining me a little bit later in the hour, is 
to talk about something that I can talk about in a very, very 
bipartisan way, and that is, the need for earmark reform. This problem 
with earmarks, a lot of people say that's the reason, that's part of 
the reason. Maybe there are two or three things that you can point to, 
I won't spell them out. I think most people understand that we lost our 
majority. ``We,'' I'm talking about now the Republican Caucus. We had 
the majority in this House for 12 years, and in November of 2006, 
obviously, we lost it. And a lot of people would say, the political 
pundits and folks back in my district, the Republican base, you guys, 
why in the world did you not rein in spending? You know, you had an 
opportunity, you had a Republican President, you had control of both 
the House and the Senate. Of course, control of the Senate, I think the 
Democrats are finding out right now that control of the Senate by two 
votes doesn't get you very far, and of course that was certainly a 
problem for us in the majority. But it is without question, in my mind, 
that this prolific spending really caused us some serious problems at 
the ballot box. And some of it has to do with these so-called ``Member 
initiatives,'' earmarks, a lot of people just flat out call it 
``pork.''
  So, I think it's a problem. Clearly, it's a problem. The American 
public perceives it to be a problem; therefore, it is a problem. And if 
you ask people in red States or blue States, they'll tell you the same 
thing: It's not right.
  Now, there are Members who will stand up here and very staunchly 
defend Member initiatives. They will

[[Page 27527]]

make the argument that, well, each Member, 435 of us, 100 in the other 
body, knows our people, knows our State, knows our district, 
understands what the needs are. People come to us, whether it's a 
school or county or city government or an individual entrepreneur 
that's got a new product that can save the lives of our soldiers 
injured on the battlefield, and that's a good thing, that's an 
appropriate thing for us to point out. Maybe the departments that we 
fund in this $933 billion discretionary spending pot that we divide up 
among all these different agencies and departments of Federal 
Government, that they can't know, they can't get into each and every 
State, although they may have regional offices. So, it's good, it's 
good that Members, Mr. Speaker, are able to bring that to the attention 
of the appropriators and make a request and get what's called by the 
general public and by the watchdog groups ``earmarks'' or ``pork.'' We 
like to refer to them as ``Member-directed initiatives.''
  And I'm a little bit torn about it. I do believe that Member 
initiatives can be a very good thing if Members do the right thing and 
there is no quid pro quo in regard to trying to grant a favor, if you 
will, for a constituent for a worthwhile, needy project that would 
ultimately help everybody, not just a very narrow group of people.
  But this system, Mr. Speaker, has really gone amuck. Now, I've only 
been here 5 years; I'm in my third term. Have I asked for Member 
initiatives for the 11th District of Georgia? Absolutely, Mr. Speaker. 
Indeed, I have done that. I have learned how to do it, not nearly as 
successfully as some of my colleagues. Some people are absolute experts 
at it, but we all kind of learn the process. It's not part of our 
orientation, by the way. If it was such a good thing, it seems like 
they would include it in the orientation manual for new Members. But 
you just kind of learn this on the slide. You know, you talk to your 
senior colleagues who have been around here for a while and you find 
out how the system works. And so, you do. And I like to feel that I can 
shine the light of day, Mr. Speaker, on every single one of those 
Member initiatives that I've asked for; certainly not gotten them all. 
In fact, the ones that I have been granted, usually it's far less than 
the request. So, we've been doing this for a long time and we've talked 
about reforming it for a long time.
  When we were in the majority, Mr. Speaker, and I say ``we.'' You and 
I are Members of this body proudly, but I'm talking about ``we'' the 
Republican Members. When we were in the majority, I think we finally 
recognized that something needed to be done and we tried to put some 
sunshine on the process. And we said, look, at the very least, let's 
make sure that when Members put these projects, these earmark projects 
in a bill, not just the appropriations bill, but also an authorizing 
bill, or maybe a narrowly drawn tax bill, all those tax bills, of 
course, originate in the House through the Ways and Means Committee, 
but if it's a tax advantage that affects just a handful of people, 
that's kind of a special deal, that's a special favor, and that has to 
be justified.
  So, we recommended in our ethics reform package in the 109th 
Congress, let's make sure that all of those Member initiatives are 
written in the bill and in the bill's report. And it specifically says 
who the Member was making the request, from what State, what the 
project is, how much money is going to be spent. And that particular 
earmark could be challenged by another Member. Another Member, during 
an appropriations vote and discussion, a Member could stand up and say, 
``I have an amendment to strike such and such an earmark.'' I would 
hope that Members would do that in a bipartisan way and that Democrats 
wouldn't just attack Republican earmarks and Republicans attack 
Democratic earmarks. If you're truly sincere about the process, you 
would look at it without any view of whether the earmark has an ``R'' 
or a ``D'' behind it, Mr. Speaker, and you would challenge it on its 
merits and then would have an up-or-down vote. That's good, that's a 
good thing.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when the new majority took over, that 
language in earmark reform was changed such that it's not required that 
the light of day shine on earmarks and authorizing bills or tax bills, 
just in the appropriations process. But that's not enough, that's not 
enough.
  In the next few minutes I want to talk about something that I have 
introduced, a bill that I think would take us a lot further down the 
road toward, if you will, Mr. Speaker, cleaning up this process.
  Now, I'm going to ask our good, young page who is here tonight, as 
they always are, working hard for us late at night, to bring the easel 
up. I've got about three posters, and I want to share some quotes with 
you. But while he's doing that, Mr. Speaker, I see that one of my 
colleagues, my classmate from the great State of New Jersey, I believe 
that's the Garden State if I'm correct, is with us on the floor. And 
the gentleman I'm talking about, Representative Scott Garrett, is also 
my colleague on the Republican Study Committee, and I thank him for 
joining me tonight.
  At this time, I would like to yield time to Mr. Garrett.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I want to begin by just complimenting one, two, three people. First 
of all, compliment Dr. Gingrey for having this session here on the 
floor tonight to bring this very important subject once again to the 
well so that we can have this debate, have this dialogue to address an 
issue that the American public is rightfully concerned about.
  Secondly, and I'm sure Dr. Gingrey will agree with this, we should 
always applaud the gentleman from Arizona, Jeff Flake, who has been, 
let us say, the ``voice in the wilderness,'' if you will, for a number 
of years when it came to earmarks coming to the floor, repeatedly, time 
and time again, before you and I were even in Congress, bringing this 
to the attention of the Members from both sides of the aisle, trying to 
shine that light of day. Unfortunately, the process was not such that 
the information was going out. He did it sporadically, at best, because 
he had to literally go through the bills page by page to try to gather 
the information. And when he did, he would gather those infamous 
examples that he would then bring to the floor, outrageous examples, 
and try to get a majority of Members of either side of the House to 
support him in deleting those egregious earmarks. Unfortunately, in 
nine out of 10, actually, it's probably more like 99 out of 100 
examples, he didn't get the support that he deserved.
  And the third group of individuals that I think we should applaud is 
the American public, because they have been rightfully outraged from 
the very start, as soon as the information began to come out of this 
House, as to where their tax dollars are going. The American public saw 
that their hard-earned tax dollars that they work every week and send 
in their taxes to the Federal Government, to Washington, D.C., are 
going to absurd things: the rain forest in the central United States or 
``bridges to nowhere'' and that sort of thing. It is only, I think, 
because their outrage has gotten to such an extent that Congress, 
especially from the other side of the aisle, the Democrat majority, is 
finally beginning to listen. And you and I also agree that they have 
not quite listened well enough because they have not brought through 
the sunshine and the adequacy of information that you and I would like 
to see and that the American public would like to see.
  So I just want to start off by saying, let's applaud those and give 
credit, yourself and Jeff Flake and the American public, where credit 
is due.
  I know you're about to talk about your proposal, so maybe I will cut 
my comments to a couple here because I would like to maybe discuss your 
proposal in detail so we can flush it out. But let me just raise this 
one point, and I think this is probably a good segue for where you're 
going to go into this.
  When it comes to earmarks, when you think about earmarks, it is right 
to say that they are really a very small

[[Page 27528]]

part of the overall expenditure of the Federal Government. 
Unfortunately, I think some Members and lobbyists also spend, 
unfortunately, a disproportionate amount of their energy and time 
attaining those earmarks. I don't think that's why they sent us to 
Washington, to spend so much of our time trying to slice out a small 
percentage of the budget to bring back home.
  We know that some Members probably spend more of their time than 
others. We also know that some Members have been more successful than 
others in bringing home those earmark dollars in perhaps a way that 
some would argue is not the most equitable and fair way. And I think 
that's what your bill will get to, to provide a more equitable and fair 
distribution of dollars.

                              {time}  2015

  How is the money being spent right now? Well, I understand that the 
average House Republican receives approximately $8.7 million on average 
in earmarks. I think that is an average as far as described as being a 
mean, or median, as opposed to a mode, when it comes to averages 
because some of them are considerably less and some of them have 
considerably more. The average Democrat, though, remember the 
Republican is $8.7 million, the average Democrat receives $10.3 million 
in earmark funds. And you have to scratch your head and think, where is 
the fairness there? Just because someone lives in a Democrat district, 
he may be a Democrat himself or he may be a Republican, is he more 
worthy? Did he pay more taxes that he is going to get more dollars 
coming into his district? Conversely, just because someone lives in a 
Republican district and he may well be a Democrat, as well, why is he 
being shortchanged? He is receiving on average a couple million dollars 
less.
  Now, I said a moment ago those are averages. Some are lower. I don't 
know where you or I stand on those numbers. But some are considerably 
higher than that. The Speaker received some $67 million in earmarks in 
the last go around, and then there, of course, is the very cream of the 
crop, the very top, appropriations cardinal, Congressman Murtha, topped 
the list at over $179 million in earmarks to his district. $166 million 
were in defense earmarks. Someone suggested that when you are 
collecting and spending $166 million, you are no longer just a 
congressman, you are now a CEO of a mid-sized company at that point. Of 
course, the interesting thing there is you are a CEO of a mid-sized 
company that has been bankrolled by the taxpayers of the country. That 
is something that we should focus the light of day on: Why are some 
people being treated better than others just by who they are, what 
positions they hold and what ranking positions they have in various 
committees.
  I think your legislation will possibly try to address those issues. 
And if it does, and as I understand it does adequately, it will go a 
long way to providing the equity and fairness that the American public 
has been seeking and has been outraged that we have not been providing 
them in the past.
  I would like to touch on some other points as far as really the scope 
of where earmarks go and some of the other things we may need to do, 
but I think this is a great segue into what your bill is able to 
address, and I yield back to the gentleman at this time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey. I 
hope he will be able to stay with us throughout the hour because I do 
want to segue back and forth with him as we delve more deeply into this 
issue. But at this point I want to ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle tonight, focus on these three charts, posters, if you will, 
that I've got because I think this is so telling in regard to why I 
said, at the outset, when we started talking about this problem, that 
this is bipartisan. This is a bipartisan problem. It needs a bipartisan 
solution.
  When we were in the majority, maybe doing the exact same thing, 
business as usual in regard to what the gentleman from New Jersey just 
pointed out, and in the way these earmarks are handed out with sort of, 
first, if you are one of the fortunate 65 that sit on the 
Appropriations Committee, whether you are in the minority or the 
majority, especially if you are in the majority, you get a much, much, 
much, much bigger bite at the apple, the earmark apple, than some rank-
and-file Member on either side of the aisle that is part of the 
``obscure caucus'' that sometimes we refer to. That is not right. That 
is absolutely not right.
  Listen to what Ms. Pelosi, the minority leader in the 109th Congress, 
said, and I think she was absolutely dead on right when she said it. 
Here is the quote, Mr. Speaker, ``If you are going to have earmarks and 
you are going to have transparency, you have to do it in the 
appropriations bill and in the tax bill, and in the authorizing bill. I 
would put that in writing.'' That is a quote from the gentlewoman, the 
distinguished current Speaker, then minority leader from California, 
Speaker Pelosi, minority leader at that time. She made that statement 
in September of 2006, exactly September 7. I guess campaign season. 
That was a good thing to say.
  I think the public paid attention to it. I think it might have helped 
the Democrats regain the majority as they now enjoy in the 110th. I 
don't know what has happened with the Speaker. Right now, the minority 
leader, John Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio who has been in this body 
since, well, I don't know when. He is still a young man. But he has 
never asked for an earmark. Do you think it is because Ohio or his 
district doesn't have the need? No. I think he thinks or he feels 
there's too much temptation for quid pro quo and corruption and he 
works very diligently to try to get through the regular process of 
applying for grants and helping his district know how to do that, that 
that is the better way.
  Well, he has dropped a bill in this Congress, in the House, to do 
exactly what we tried to do under the Republican leadership, Mr. 
Speaker, in the 109th, do exactly what Madam Speaker Pelosi said on 
September 7, 2006. Do you know where that bill is? It is buried. It 
could have a hearing. It could be brought to this floor. Gosh, we could 
do it this Friday. That was another pledge that the Democrats made, Mr. 
Speaker, that we were going to work 5-day weeks and I bet you we will 
be leaving here on Thursday night. Heck, we could bring this bill up. 
The leadership just has to agree to do it, and we could be voting on 
this very issue on Friday. But, no, it is buried. It hasn't seen the 
light of day. So we Republicans, maybe hopefully some like-minded, good 
Democrats, maybe the Blue Dog Coalition, maybe the Congressional Black 
Caucus who is sick and tired of getting the short end of the stick in 
regard to this earmark process would sign that discharge petition and 
let us get 218 signatures so that we can immediately bring that bill 
that Ms. Pelosi recommended to the floor. That seems pretty 
straightforward to me. Let's do what she asked us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, the next line is another quote from our now current 
Speaker, and she said this, if she were to become Speaker in the next 
Congress, Pelosi said she would press to severely reduce earmarks. And 
this is a quote. That was what the reporter wrote in the Wall Street 
Journal. But this is a quote that the current Speaker gave to him. 
``Personally, myself, I would get rid of all of them,'' she says. 
``None of them is worth the skepticism, the cynicism the public has and 
the fiscal irresponsibility of it.'' That was in the Wall Street 
Journal.
  Yet, Speaker Pelosi, she herself is on track to take home $100 
million this year in the earmark member initiative category.
  That just astounds me. That just astounds me. What she said here, my 
colleagues, is so true. ``None of them is worth the skepticism, the 
cynicism, the public has.'' Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my 
colleagues to pay attention to an article that was written today, USA 
Today, quick read, easy read, Wednesday, October 17, front page, should 
have been above the fold, below the fold, but here is the byline on 
this article, my colleagues: Timing of Gifts Stirs Earmark Debate. And 
then the subtitle: Donations Made After Funding Added to the Bill.

[[Page 27529]]

  Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read the first paragraph. The article is 
short, but I am not going to read the entire article. But this is what 
it says in the first paragraph:
  ``Days after a Senate committee approved $1 million for a Woodstock, 
New York, concert museum, the project's Republican billionaire backer 
and his family contributed $29,200 to help the Democrats who requested 
the money, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.'' A 
$29,200 contribution from this billionaire and his family. Within the 
limits? Sure, within the legal limits. I am sure it probably was him, 
his wife and his kids, adult children who are permitted to make 
contributions. Maybe Senators Clinton and Schumer have leadership PACs 
and they can get $5,000 a chunk to those PACs.
  Then the article goes on and says:
  ``It's neither illegal nor unusual for contributors to benefit from 
congressionally directed spending known as earmarks, but the timing of 
the June donations is grist for critics who see a link between 
legislative pet projects and campaign money.''
  Now, I am going to tell you, I don't want to say that that is the 
proof of the pudding, but it is mighty suspicious. And I don't think it 
passes the smell test.
  I am not being overly critical of these two Senators. The problem is 
on both sides of the aisle in both Chambers. What really called my 
attention to it, Mr. Speaker, was an article about a month ago in CQ 
Weekly in the title, the front page, Playing the Earmark Game and How 
It is Done, and how certain Members get, as I pointed out earlier, a 
much, much bigger bite at the apple. I will tell you, my colleagues, 
you know this. I hope the American public knows it. It is going to be 
members of the Appropriations Committee. It is going to be the party 
leaders, possibly on both sides of the aisle, or it is going to be 
Members who have had a tough election in a very competitive district, 
and we run it every 2 years and they are going to have a tough reelect, 
be they Republicans or Democrats, and, therefore, those Members are 
going to be granted a lot more. Mr. Garrett talked about the average of 
$8 million. Maybe those are the ones that get $25 million worth of a 
bite at the apple so they can appear to be doing more for their 
district. They are a great Member, so let's reelect them. They are 
bringing home the pork. They are bringing home the bacon.
  But you know what happens with that process, Mr. Speaker, and there 
are several articles in this magazine. This one is titled, Gaps Along 
Racial Lines. What happens to Members of this body who may be from 
minority majority districts or Latino districts or inner city districts 
and they easily get elected. They are very popular in their district. 
So they don't need any shoring up to get reelected. So they get maybe 
$1 million instead of $8 million, and somebody else, some powerful 
Member gets $180 million for their district. That is flat wrong. 
Because, Mr. Speaker, those Members that I just described, whether they 
are members of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Latino caucus or 
they represent a rural district in Georgia, they have 670,000 people 
that they represent, and they have poor towns and poor counties and 
poor school systems that need the money, that need the project, and 
they don't get it. It goes to the fat cats. That is just flat wrong.
  We are going to try to change that. Some Members think that the 
solution to this problem, Mr. Speaker, is a nuclear option, and that 
would be to totally eliminate all earmarks tomorrow. No more earmark 
Member initiatives and we stop all this temptation that any Member 
could fall prey to, any Member, including myself.

                              {time}  2030

  So I can concur and understand that feeling that we might need to 
completely, totally stop the earmark process. But then, again, many 
Members have pointed out to me that, you know, Congressman, we don't 
mind putting our earmarks out there for the light of day, we don't mind 
them being challenged, but don't take them away from us, because we are 
doing it right. Don't ruin a process that could be good because there 
are a few rotten eggs in the basket. I understand that argument as 
well.
  My proposed legislation, and I appreciate Mr. Garrett from New Jersey 
still being with me because I want to yield some time to him and get 
into a colloquy about the bill, Mr. Speaker, but what it does is this. 
It says, look, in 2006, the high water mark of earmarks, when $29 
billion worth of discretionary spending, about 3 percent of the overall 
discretionary spending was earmarked by House and Senate Members, well, 
let's do this in my bill. It says to cut that amount by 50 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, that is also almost a Pelosi quote. What was called for 
by the Democrats when they were in the minority trying to seek the 
majority, let's cut these earmarks by 50 percent in one fell swoop. So 
that is what my bill does; it cuts that $29 billion to $14 billion. 
Then you do a little arithmetic, not calculus, but a little bit of 
arithmetic, and you divide 535 into that $14 billion number and you 
come up with a figure of $27 million. The bill says no Member, no 
Member from Pennsylvania, no Member from California, no powerful 
Democrat, no powerful ranking member, no appropriator, nobody who needs 
help propping up them for the next election, nobody can get more than 
$27 million worth of earmarks for their district.
  Now that doesn't mean they have to take them. If Members like Mr. 
Garrett and Mr. Flake and Mr. Boehner and Mr. Hensarling and a total of 
12 Republicans stand strong on principle and say that earmarking is 
wrong and I want to say that my $27 million should go back to the 
taxpayer and subtract that number from the 302(A) allocation, as we 
call it, that is some real money. The first thing you know, you might 
have 100 Members doing that, or 300 Members on both sides of the aisle 
saying ``I want to end this process.'' That opportunity is there. The 
money wouldn't be spent by somebody else.
  Mr. Speaker, but, on the other hand, if a Member had something that 
they felt very strongly about, whether it was a road project or 
repairing a bridge infrastructure, obviously the State of Minnesota 
knows what I am talking about, or widening a port so that these large 
container ships can come in that are now going to be able to come in 
through the Panama Canal, there's merit. So a lot of Members would say, 
you know, I really need this. Maybe one year $15 million; possibly the 
next year, the max; maybe the next year nothing, in which case the 
taxpayer would benefit from that as well. That is what this bill is all 
about. It's about putting some fairness, restoring some integrity to 
the process, and also controlling spending.
  Mr. Speaker, my thinking on this is really twofold, controlling 
spending, and also ending this climate, if you will, of corruption, 
where Members on both sides of the aisle, and I don't think there is a 
Member of this body that comes here without a great deal of integrity 
and honesty. I don't believe they could look people in the eye in their 
district and get elected. It is hard to get elected to the Congress, to 
the House or the Senate. I think people come here with good character. 
But I think, unfortunately, the process will adversely affect a few. We 
can name some bodies that are littered and strewn about this place, 
that actually some of them are now spending time in the Crossbar Hotel, 
as my dad used to say.
  So this bill, I think, would help. It would be a great start; not 
just a little move, but a fairly draconian move. A lot of Members are 
not going to like it. I have already begun to accumulate cosponsors, 
and every day we get several more, and hopefully this is something that 
we can accomplish.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield back to my colleague from New 
Jersey (Mr. Garrett) at this time for further commentary.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as I sit here, and here we are in October, the question 
that always first comes to my mind is 10

[[Page 27530]]

months into the 110th Congress under now the new Democratic control, 
and what has that 10 months wrought: The largest tax increase in U.S. 
history, the creation of a budget by them with slush funds where 
there's no accountability; and, finally, the lack of transparency that 
was promised to us. That last point I think is what Dr. Gingrey is 
talking about here this evening. I am glad to join him to illuminate 
that issue a little bit more, the lack of transparency.
  The Democrats ran the election of last year saying that there was not 
enough transparency and openness in the prior Congresses and that if 
they were elected and put in a position of power, they would bring that 
transparency, the openness, the sunshine, if you will, to this floor. 
That is what they campaigned on. That is even, as Dr. Gingrey says here 
with the charts, the quotes from Speaker Pelosi, what they promised 
even after they came into a position of power. Of course that has not 
occurred.
  Mr. Speaker, some who may be listening to us here right now say why 
didn't the Republicans do this when they were in charge? The fact of 
the matter is, as you may recall, we did. We did pass legislation in 
the 109th Congress to bring transparency to reform the earmark process. 
Unfortunately, not all those reforms were carried over with us into the 
new 110th Congress, and, I should add, some of the changes that have 
occurred in the 110th Congress only came about because of people like 
Dr. Gingrey, Jeff Flake, and other people, Jeb Hensarling from the RNC, 
coming to the floor and compelling and forcing the additional reforms 
that we have seen so far in this 110th Congress.
  Let me just make this point. In earmarks right now, and it only 
applies basically to appropriation bills, which of course you have 
already spoken as far as the discharge petition, but in the rules of 
the House right now you would think that the American public would have 
the information now at hand that they have been asking for all along: 
Who's sponsoring the earmark, what the earmark is for, and how much 
money that earmark is allocating. You would think that is the case 
because that is the reform we compel the other side of the aisle to 
implement.
  Well, they passed the rule, but they are not implementing the rule. 
What they did was quite clever. You take a piece of legislation that 
can be literally this thick, as far as a bill is concerned, an 
appropriation bill, or even thicker than this as well, and that 
information is in here, who sponsored it, how much it's for, and what 
the project is, but it's not in one place. Instead what they did was 
put it in two places. So you go to one page where it has the sponsor's 
name and the project, then you go 100 pages later on and there will be 
the project and the amount.
  Now you have to search through literally thousands of pages, 
thousands of lines, and to put the two together to find out that, well, 
Congressman Murtha, for example, had this particular project in his 
district. You have to spend literally hours and hours and days and days 
to put it together to get that number that we gave before, $166 million 
in Defense Appropriations.
  I commend ``Congressional Quarterly'', because that magazine did 
spend the time to put together that data and has published the report, 
and it was an outside organization that actually did much of the 
spreadsheets on that. Finally, the American taxpayer has that 
information, no thanks to the other side of the aisle, because they put 
it together in a convoluted and basically in an orchestrated manner to 
make sure that the information they were required to reveal to the 
American public was presented in a way that you could not see it.
  The proposal that you are presenting to us tonight is a good one. I 
believe it is a step in the right direction, and I think the gentleman 
from Georgia would agree that it is a step in the right direction, and 
that we can even eventually, if we can get this step done, we can go 
even further, as you illustrated, to get even more information and to 
rein this in even further.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, yes to the gentleman's 
question in regard to maybe this being a good first step, and almost a 
giant step, not a baby step.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I didn't mean to say it wasn't a good 
first step.
  Mr. GINGREY. And we should go further. But I would tell my colleague, 
Mr. Speaker, that in a way it is analogous, and forgive me for using 
medical analogies, but I spent 31 years of my adult life doing that, of 
trying to wean someone off heroin, a drug addict. Mr. Speaker, you 
can't do that cold turkey. It would kill the drug addict, so they go 
through a detoxification process, if you will, and that is not a pretty 
thing to see. Then they are gradually weaned off and switched over to a 
drug called methadone. It is a heroin-like substance, an analog. It can 
take sometimes a couple of years, even when a drug addict is 
cooperating and wants to be cured of their addiction.
  I think I am not overstating it. I don't think I am embellishing here 
when I say this Member-initiative earmark process has become an 
addiction. I truly believe it has. And it is tough. So to cut it in 
half in one fell swoop and put caps on it, and, as Mr. Garrett, the 
gentleman from New Jersey pointed out, shine the light of day on it so 
that you can see it and you can find it, obey not only the letter of 
the law, but, for goodness' sake, obey the spirit of the law and not 
make it difficult for watchdog groups or other Members or John Q. 
Public to look in the Congressional Record or read these bills and find 
out what is in there.
  So there is no question that Mr. Garrett is right, that after we get 
this done, go through the detoxification process, if you will, we will 
then try to wean this body off of this process, because I think we 
ultimately need to do that.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Just a point that comes to mind. One of 
the issues that we will be dealing with this week is SCHIP. There is a 
piece of legislation you wouldn't think would be prone to earmarks. If 
you listen to the other side, they would tell you, hey, there are no 
earmarks in there.
  That is one of the peculiarities of the rule, the way the Democrats 
have written it as far as providing transparency. All you have to do is 
take your bill, that could be chockfull with all of your favorite pet 
earmarks from the cardinals and the chairmen of your committees and all 
your other friends, and the ones requested by lobbyists and what have 
you, and all the Democratic majority has to do is say, we hereby say 
there are no earmarks in here, and that is it. You and I can come to 
the floor and rail about it all we want and say, yes, there are. Look 
at page 72, line B. Here is an earmark.
  That is exactly what happened with the SCHIP legislation. They said 
there are no earmarks here. Lo and behold, there are. There are 
literally billions of dollars in earmarks in that going to special 
projects and special hospitals across the country, and you and I would 
not know about it if we were just to trust them and take them at their 
word.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. As we talked about 
earlier in the hour, as we are approaching the culmination of our time, 
this earmark that is described in the USA Today on the front page talks 
about $1 million for some Woodstock museum.
  Some of us who grew up in the Deep South who remember reading about 
Woodstock and seeing the video clips were somewhat appalled about what 
went on there, Mr. Speaker, so I am sure that that would be an earmark 
that Mr. Flake or Mr. Hensarling or Mr. Garrett or myself would like to 
stand up and say, I don't care if it is to some billionaire Republican 
making the request, and then the next day writing a check in the 
aggregate of $29,200 to the 2 Senators from New York. Maybe that is 
within the legal rights to do that, but it sure doesn't pass the smell 
test.
  That is where we are. I have talked to my colleagues about, well, how 
could we possibly take this a step further, those colleagues who really 
agree with me that this process is totally out of hand, and maybe phase 
out earmarks over a 3- or 4-year period of time.

[[Page 27531]]



                              {time}  2045

  Obviously another way to approach it would be to say drop a bill that 
says we totally eliminate, or drop a bill that says we are going to 
have a 1- or 2-year moratorium. I could support either one of those.
  But if Members still feel very strongly that a Member-directed 
initiative done correctly have merit and value, then the bill, I think, 
I am presenting will put some fairness into the process.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. None of these things, as good as all these 
ideas are, are going to happen unless the majority party, the Democrat 
Party, Speaker Pelosi agrees they are actually the right thing to do 
and are willing to move the legislation.
  Your bill that would move in the direction that the American public 
wants us to move, to rein in excessive spending, to rein in earmarks, 
to put a clamp or a lid on them, to move in the direction of moving 
them out entirely or at least scaling them down, will not move unless 
the Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, says that is a good idea and she will post 
the bill.
  The legislation that you spoke about at the top of hour regarding the 
discharge petition that the Republican leader has that would expand 
earmark information to not just appropriation bills but also to 
authorizing legislation, to clean up some of the areas that have given 
them the latitude to actually continue to hide this information from 
the American public. That piece of legislation will not move unless the 
Democrat Party and Speaker Pelosi finally hear from the American public 
and realize this is what the American public wants us to do and wants 
us to move that legislation.
  It is still early in the evening. It is only a quarter of 9. I am 
sure Speaker Pelosi is in her office or somewhere in the Capitol as we 
speak. I would invite her to come to the floor right now and join us 
with either one of those pieces of legislation. Maybe you could recite 
the words right back to her that she said some time ago, and remind her 
of what she said when it comes to the issue of giving transparency and 
openness. I would invite her to come to the floor and join us in this 
debate this evening, to say she will move these, will move these things 
in the next days, weeks. Just before the winter holiday so when we 
leave here in the next several weeks or months, they, we can say in the 
first session of the 110th Congress we finally gave the American public 
what they were promised when the Democrat majority came into Congress. 
I will eagerly await her arrival here.
  Mr. GINGREY. The gentleman is exactly right. The Speaker could say 
forget about Minority Leader Boehner's discharge petition, we are going 
to bring it up under regular order. We are going to do the right thing. 
We are going to do what I, Madam Speaker, said she would do in 
September of 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight and I 
thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for taking this hour 
and to say to colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I think most of my 
colleagues would agree, even though I had to rebut the four outstanding 
freshmen Democrats that had the previous hour regarding the SCHIP 
program.
  I think most of my colleagues would agree that I am not a real 
partisan Member, and I enjoy comity. That is the way I think it should 
be. But we have a problem here in River City, whether it is Republican 
leadership or Democratic leaders.
  Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that the party, if it becomes partisan, 
the party that will take hold of this idea and pledge to the American 
people that we are going to do something about it once and for all, and 
as Mr. Flake has said to me often, it is one thing to air out our 
laundry, but we need to clean it. We don't need to just air it, we need 
to clean it up. I agree with him completely. Again, I think the party 
that will adopt that or fight for it is the party that either deserves 
to keep their majority or regain their majority.

                          ____________________