[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15376-15377]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    FUNDING THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HOMETOWN SECURITY BY EARMARK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas). Under a previous 
order of the House, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to highlight an earmark in the 
fiscal 2009 Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. Now, 
the reason I'm having to do this is that it looks like we won't even be 
considering this bill on the floor, and therefore, it may be that all 
of the earmarks, the hundreds of earmarks that were approved in the 
committee for that bill, may be dumped into the bill, just air-dropped 
into the bill, at the last minute without even being considered by the 
House. That's simply not right.
  This earmark is for the Kentucky-based National Institute for 
Hometown Security. When I came across this earmark, I was surprised at 
the dollar amount. In fact, it was the second largest earmark requested 
by an individual in the Department of Homeland Security appropriations 
bill. Now, I would submit that spending like this pushes the Federal 
Treasury threat level past orange, or high risk, right into the red 
zone, or severe category.
  According to the Web site of the earmark recipient, the institute 
sponsor suggested organizing the higher education institutions of 
Kentucky to more effectively compete for research funds and projects 
aimed at improving homeland security. It appears that the purpose of 
the consortium and of the institute is to make Kentucky better at 
receiving Federal funds, arguably an admirable purpose. It's simply too 
bad that it's paid for with Federal funds.

[[Page 15377]]

  The institute goes on to say that the institute is designed to help 
develop new technologies and devices that commercialize them. Now, with 
taxpayers shouldering over $5 trillion in Federal debt, why do we need 
to fund programs for the benefit of commercializing products?
  This institute was created in 2004. According to the Department of 
Homeland Security, the agency which is charged with overseeing this, 
the Department has never requested funds for the National Institute for 
Hometown Security. Why are we doing this through an earmark?
  I must ask the question: Would this institute exist in the first 
place if select members of a powerful committee did not direct the 
spending for it?
  Since receiving its first earmark, the institute has received more 
than $60 million in Federal earmarks, including $12 million in 2005, 
$20 million in 2006, $20 million in 2007, $11 million in 2008. If this 
earmark is approved, the institute will have received $74 million in 
earmark funding. For what? What has the center produced or achieved 
that can possibly be worth this kind of money? Will we continue to 
earmark for this institute indefinitely?
  I am certain, if I had the opportunity to challenge this earmark on 
the House floor during regular order, the sponsor might be glad to 
highlight what he believes the institute's achievements are. My 
response would simply be: If this institute is so important, if it's so 
needed for the Department of Homeland Security, why do you have to 
earmark funding for it? Why doesn't the Department seek its own funding 
and say this is a vital institute? ``We ought to provide funding within 
the budget. We're going to request it.'' No. The money has to be 
earmarked by an appropriator.
  In 2005, a Washington Post story provided details on the institute. 
It indicated that the sponsor of the earmark has, as a senior 
appropriator, ``encouraged contractors to move into his district and 
has announced millions of dollars in antiterrorism research at Kentucky 
colleges and universities.''
  That same article highlighted the sponsor's having taken credit for 
$206 million in homeland security research-related funding for the 
State. The Post article indicated: ``So much Federal money for high-
tech homeland security projects has flowed to southeastern Kentucky, 
that those who are there have taken to calling it `Silicon Holler' with 
the institute and the university consortium at the heart of it.''
  I would submit that handling this funding in any other way than 
through earmarks might put a damper on what appears to be a spoil 
system where certain powerful Members are able to shower their 
districts with taxpayer dollars. If we had regular order and a regular 
authorization-appropriation oversight process, we wouldn't be 
earmarking funds like this.
  I would inquire also as to what, if any, oversight the Appropriations 
Committee has undertaken to ensure that the $60 million that has 
already been given to the institute was worthwhile and why an 
additional $11 million is warranted.
  I would submit also that, when taxpayers send their dollars to 
Washington, they expect more than an earmarking system that is absent 
real oversight and that seems to just give the keys to the Treasury to 
a few powerful appropriators.
  Mr. Speaker, I will soon be circulating a letter to Speaker Pelosi 
and to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, asking 
them to ensure that if we don't have regular order and if we don't go 
through the appropriations process that we not air-drop earmarks into 
an omnibus bill when this body has not had a chance to even see them, 
let alone to adequately vet them.
  I urge my colleagues to do better with the taxpayers' money. We 
should be better stewards. We have a time-honored process in this body 
of authorization, appropriation and oversight that we have been 
ignoring for years, and the taxpayers are the worse for it. We cannot 
continue to do that. This institution is a better body than that, and 
we ought to give more respect to it.

                          ____________________