Congressional Lawmaking Authority Protection Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. And under different circumstances, I would simply say I accept it and that would be the end of it, but that is not going to be the end of it.

I rise in support because I think there are a couple of things we have to know and we have to remember. First of all, there is a law in place since 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which allowed agricultural products to be sold to Cuba.

Now, here is where the irony comes in. In 2005 the Treasury Department issued regulations requiring that the payments for exports to Cuba must be either received by the U.S. exporter or by a third- country bank prior to the goods leaving the port in the United States rather than upon arrival in Cuba. Now, that is the only country we do that with.

Now, what is the irony here? The part of the argument that has always been made is that we should work in this Congress to help or to force Cuba into a political change, a political change which would mirror our democratic system, our electoral process, and also, I am sure, our capitalist system. Well, the irony of this is that it is capitalism at its best to allow credit to take place between two nations. It is anti- capitalism to suggest that the only way that we can sell products to you is if you pay ahead of time prior to looking at the product. I mean, we wouldn't do that. Picture going into a store and their saying you can't look at the product, you can't test the product, you can't do anything: you have to pay ahead of time.

So there is a contradiction here that doesn't make sense. What the gentleman wants to do is simply put Cuba on par with every other country.

Now, if we were here for the first time, as we were in 2000, creating a new way to trade with Cuba, then all these arguments, I think, would be in place, whether we want to do that or not, what kind of government they have. But we already have that in place. We already have that in place. And we should note that the reason we have this in place is not because anti-embargo people like me ruled the day in 2000, it's because farmers in this country and business people in this country, but especially the farming community, felt that it was important for American business to be able to sell some products to Cuba. That has not changed our political stance on Cuba. Cuba still has an embargo imposed by the U.S. We still do not have relations with Cuba. Nothing has really changed since 2000 except the ability to sell products.

Now the gentleman wants to put Cuba on an even keel with the rest of the world. I think it's a proper way to go. I think it's good for our business community. I think it's good for trade with Cuba. And I support the gentleman's amendment.

I will be asking Members on this side and on both sides to vote for his amendment if it comes to a vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. And that states, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' And it does impose additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman starts off as we suspected by assuming that Members of Congress have no ability and no understanding and no knowledge, enough certainly to make an appropriation called an earmark. That assumes that only Federal agencies and the folks who work in those agencies know what a good program is.

I think every so often we have to remind ourselves what a so-called earmark is. An earmark is when a Member of Congress determines that in his or her district there is a program worthy of Federal support. But on so many occasions, as certainly has been the occasion in my district in the Bronx, those Federal agencies, for one reason or another, don't pay the attention they should, so a Member gets involved in directing some dollars. And it is some dollars compared to the total budget.

In this particular case, we're talking about an organization in the Youngstown area that was originally set up to deal with the fact that in the southwestern Pennsylvania region, there has been a mass exodus of people between 25 and 30 years of age. Furthermore, with the demise of the steel and coal industry, the region has seen very high levels of unemployment. New and small businesses are necessary to the economic well-being of the citizens of this area.

Now, JARI's efforts have directly led to an increase in small businesses formed in the region and jobs created and retained in the region. There has been an increase in longevity and sustainable efforts for small businesses. Business folks have been given the ability to grow. And yes, while the gentleman seems to think that it is a bad thing to have Federal dollars go in and then assist in reaching other dollars, well, that just shows that they know how to work the system and work it properly. There is nothing wrong with that. But the whole notion that only people and Federal agencies know how to direct dollars, and that only they know what a good program is is really a misconception.

Now, the gentleman from Arizona will be here for quite a while, we see he's setting up his presentation. And it will be a good, strong presentation, but it is only based on the belief that Members of Congress are not intelligent enough to know a good program, to know a good use of Federal dollars.

Interestingly enough, the same folks who will get up today and attack earmarks will not attack the fact that there are large number of earmarks that come directly out of the White House directing Congress to spend money on something; and that most have voted for the largest earmark of them all, the war in Iraq, which has earmarked hundreds of billions of dollars with very little, incidentally, accountability in many, many cases.

So, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He knows that he and I have a friendship, a personal friendship and respect. But on this one, as last time, he is totally wrong. I stand in opposition to his amendment and in support of this particular earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I am sorry?

The sponsor is not on the floor, but his trusted companion is on the floor.

You have said that.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I would like to direct my comments more on the sponsor than on the project, although I will speak about the project.

The gentleman is one of the most distinguished Members of the House, certainly a Member who knows the appropriations process, knows the pitfalls of this process called earmarks, and would not knowingly put forth a foolish or unworthy member-item before the House. So I take that very seriously. He is not a rookie who is trying to find his way around the House, as many do every day, but he is one who knows what is acceptable and what is proper and what is dignified, and that is what he is doing.

Secondly, and very important to note, we all have so-called earmarks for our district. This is for the Nation's Capital. This is not something he is bringing back to his district to score points with his constituents, which is proper. There is nothing wrong with that, letting your constituents know you are working in Washington on their behalf. But here he takes time, and, if I may say, dollars that he probably could have asked for his own district, to make sure that something in the Nation's Capital happens and happens properly.

I take that very seriously, because, as I said last night, Mr. Regula and I are committed in this committee to making life and conditions in D.C. much better than they are.

So I commend the gentleman from California for thinking of a place outside his own district, and I am here in opposition.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I concede to the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as we already know, I conceded that point of order so that issue is not before us. But I think it is important, nevertheless, to speak somewhat to the issue so that people fully understand what it was that this subcommittee was attempting to do.

The whole notion of having private debt collectors collecting taxes throughout this country does not sit well with a lot of people. It is not one

of the most popular programs. In fact, it is a very unpopular program.

No one traditionally has liked the idea of somebody knocking on your door to collect your taxes in a dispute with the government. But at least historically we have had a situation where we knew that the person knocking at our door or on the phone was a member of the government, an employee of the government, who had been trained in how to deal with the public and who fully understood what was within the law allowed in that conversation and in that approach.

We now, in this wild desire to turn our backs on Federal employees and outsource, go out and get private employees to handle much of government's work, we decided to go and set up a system which is really very sad. We now say to a private debt collector, go and collect those taxes; and for doing that, we will give you 24 cents on the dollar.

The American people need to know that. They need to know that for every dollar that is owed to the government, the government is now saying we will hire an outside agency that will go after you, and we will let them keep 24 cents on the dollar. What a waste of government money. What a waste of the taxpayers' money.

It is interesting that we hear folks here get up and tell us we are wasting taxpayer dollars. In fact, in a few minutes the gentleman from Arizona will go back to that issue, although he was not involved in this other one and I don't want to bring him into it. But you talk about a waste of money. Rather than use government employees to go find these dollars, you are going to give away 24 cents on every dollar.

The point of order was based on a belief that this would lose revenue for the government because we would not hire these folks to go find the money, to go collect the money. The whole purpose of our bill was to go back to the day when the employees of the Federal Government would collect the dollars. Nowhere in this bill did it say that by not allowing outsourcing of these jobs, by not allowing private debt collectors, we are giving up on our hope to collect the dollars. That was not the purpose.

So, technically, the point of order was correct, and that is why we conceded it. But when you really analyze this, it would have been and it was a bad decision, because that was not the intent.

Lastly, the very famous hit show ``The Sopranos'' ended a couple of weeks ago. But had they known that this program was going to continue, they could have had another episode, because I predict that years from now we are going to be back here telling you horror stories about how private debt collectors are collecting those debts. They don't have to answer to the public or to the government, the way we have to, the way Federal employees have to. What they are going to start doing is using all kinds of tactics that we will live to regret. So there might yet be another Sopranos episode.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Flake

Since 1959, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR, has been one of California's preeminent public policy think tanks providing research, analysis and public education related to planning and good government.

It was originally formed to revitalize downtown San Francisco by channeling growth away from suburban sprawl and back into the urban core. SPUR provides a neutral educational forum to promote civic engagement, particularly among disadvantaged citizens, businesses operating in areas of high employment, and firms operated by low-income individuals.

SPUR is a widely sought-out resource for small businesses, concerned individuals, local government agencies and other nonprofits, offering educational programs, publishing a monthly journal with the latest information on urban planning and best practices, and convening 20 active policy committees where small business people and community members can become involved in local and regional public policy.

The funds included in the Financial Services appropriations bill are for construction costs associated with the new urban center. The center will allow SPUR to expand its educational

and research programs related to key issues impacting urban businesses and communities.

You know, as I listen to the gentleman, I always know where he is going with his argument because his argument continues to be that only people in agencies know how to spend Federal dollars and that we, Members of Congress, do not. Obviously a program that has been around since 1959 in the City of San Francisco that has played a role in revitalizing the city and its growth, a city we are all proud of, is one that merits our support.

As I am reading what I have in front of me, I am thinking how in private industry we always hold up private industry and corporate America as the ones that do it on their own, and we don't want to do anything for community groups that may be trying to get some government help. But, you know, we have all kind of tax breaks and tax subsidies that we give corporate America to grow and invest. They have their think tanks, except we are talking about billions of dollars, so their think tanks are composed of people they deal with on a daily business.

Local folks, local small business people every so often need government to step in and give them a helping hand, not to carry them on their shoulders, but to help them grow. I think this is a fine example of a program that merits our support. For that reason, not only do I support it, but I respectfully rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

This is not my earmark. But you know something, as chairman of the committee that carries the earmarks, I respect the fact that every Member has a right to put them forth, and we looked at all of them, as did Mr. Regula, and the earmarks that are here are earmarks that we feel are proper.

I suggest to my colleagues that they pay close attention to their TV sets because I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the gentleman's program. Now, I'm going to do that and try to remain serious, because I'm supporting an earmark by the gentleman who spent over 3 days beating the heck out of all the earmarks on the House floor and telling us that he had never seen an earmark that he liked. I obviously saw an earmark that I like, his earmark, and he saw an earmark that he liked.

Granted that it's got a pretty bad title because people think it's a Christmas tree and Christmas tree opens up a discussion for loading up and all kinds of other things, but we actually looked at it and it's a worthy project.

My point in diplomatically somewhat embarrassing him is the point that I can see in him an ability and a desire to help his community, and he could not see in us for 3\1/2\ torturous days our desire to help our community. And so I am rising as chairman of the committee asking both sides to go against Mr. Flake and support the gentleman's earmark because it indeed is one that helps his community and that's what it's all about.

But in the process of doing that, we also have to be careful what we say. The gentleman from Texas said that he supported Mr. Flake but opposed your amendment but thanked you for making this process possible. I have a surprise for you. Even if you had said nothing against earmarks, Mr. Flake was going to say something about earmarks for as long as he could because he's known for that.

So this is a very convoluted situation that I find myself in. But I support your earmark, I want you to take full credit for it, I want you to put a press release out and if you don't, I will put a press release out naming your program because I think it's a wonderful program and you should be proud of it.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

And reclaiming my time, with all due respect to both gentlemen from North Carolina and Arizona, we know that the perfect Christmas tree only grows in upstate New York and that's a fact of life.

Reclaiming my time, English is a second language to me, but I assure you that I know what you said and you were not saying that you just wanted information. You were saying

these were bad things. Except that you found a good one and I support you on it. So as they say in the south Bronx, quit while you're ahead. Just take the earmark and publicize it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I'm in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. And the gentleman continues to stay with the theme that these programs can operate without government assistance. Yet, the gentleman, on many occasions, votes, as we all do, for programs where corporate America and other parts of our economic community, of our corporate community, gets help from government in order to put forth their product, in order to put forth their growth.

What my colleague, our freshman colleague is doing, and I compliment him on that, on the fact that as a freshman Member of this House, he already has, obviously, a sense of what his community needs. And this earmark, this modest earmark that he has put in this bill is one to take back to his community and continue to help to build the kind of small business education and information centers that we need.

And so I not only rise in support of it, but I commend the fact that already, at such a short time tenure in this House, he has that full understanding, willing, incidentally, to stand up and defend an earmark, knowing that some people will criticize him for it. But he knows his community better than we do.

And that's my whole point, that there seems to be a prevailing theme that only bureaucrats and Federal agencies, who I support, know how to spend taxpayers' dollars.

Well, no, this is a fine example of a new Member of the House who has a full understanding of his district, who is willing to stand up and defend what is a good earmark. And that's what we should respect, the fact that when we look at the global situation, these Member-driven items are a small amount of dollars, Mr. Chairman, compared to the overall budget.

I mean, I don't want to continue to harp on it, but the kind of money we spend in Iraq, billions, hundreds of billions, of dollars, a lot of that, as we know, unaccounted for, special contracts that went out that we never knew a thing about. Who got rich, who didn't get rich? That's never an issue on the House floor. That's never an issue. A couple hundred thousand dollars to a good community group in North Carolina, that's an issue. Yes, it is an issue. It's a good issue. It's a positive issue. It's the way dollars should be spent.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I support the gentleman's initiative.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, part of the argument that the gentleman from Arizona has been making in addition to the ones he has made before is how do we choose this particular program.

Well, that is where the wisdom of the local Member comes in. The Member is asked, is faced with these decisions, and that is how we make them. And, again, it seems to suggest that when grants are handed out at the Federal level, I mean, how many people apply for Federal grants? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? And only a handful get them. We don't question how those grants are handed out. We don't say necessarily that the Federal Government and that agency handed out the wrong grant. It was their decision to hand out that grant. No different, the wisdom used by the Member in his local community, her local community, to understand the needs and ask for a grant, ask for an earmark, and that is what the gentleman from West Virginia has done.

Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like to yield to my colleague and classmate from New York, classmate in the State Assembly (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, just to kind of give the gentleman good news and make him feel good, we are ready to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is a very interesting and important issue that the gentleman has brought up. I am just thinking, as I had prepared this bill, and sent it over to the executive for a signature, maybe I should declare myself as part of the executive for that period of time and get all the Secret Service protection and all that goes with it. If we start doing that, we could get to a big problem. He brings up an interesting point. It has to be dealt with. The Vice President has to decide if he is part of the Senate or is he a part of the executive branch. We can deal with it later once he tells us what he wants to do.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, now that the gentleman from New Jersey has shot down any chance of me being part of the executive branch, reminding me that the Constitution doesn't allow it, I will just keep quiet on that and yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), our caucus chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman is correct. This is a very serious matter. This administration, this Vice President, whether on torture, whether on prisons, whether on their behavior in spying on Americans, has told us over and over that they are above the Constitution. What this says is that they are not above the Constitution. No one is. The Vice President certainly is not.

Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify what it is he is asking for?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is using a very interesting approach. He was part of a group that spent time questioning how we presented earmarks. At that time, we had already, under the leadership of Mr. Obey, come forth with a proper plan where transparency was the order of the day, where vetting each program, each request, was the order of the day. But that was not enough for the gentleman. It was not enough for the group that stood here day after day badgering us about earmarks.

Now the approach is to say that notwithstanding the fact that the earmarks are part of a very open process, that not withstanding the fact that there is a new day in how we handle earmarks, that notwithstanding the fact that we have cut earmarks by 50 percent, notwithstanding any of that, no earmark is good and all earmarks should disappear.

What is sad about that is that is not what we were originally presented with. We were not presented with that. We were presented with a belief that we had to do things differently. Notwithstanding the fact that the chairman, Mr. Obey, already had proposed a plan that was totally different from the past. They felt that it should be better or different or colored different, or whatever.

Now they want no earmarks. Well, people should be reminded that Member projects have been vetted through each Member's office. I have said over and over again that Members know the needs of their districts and Members know how to present an earmark through the committee staff to committee leadership.

Second, every item has been reviewed by the Appropriations Committee. The staff has taken long hours on both sides working in a bipartisan fashion to look at all requests and come up with the final list. We looked at your requests and you looked at our requests. We both looked at all of them. That is how we came to this. So we are pretty sure that everybody's concerns are taken into account here.

Members who sponsor these projects believe that they are worthy and that the taxpayers' money is being well spent. Again, whenever an agency spends money on giving out a grant to a community group, we don't have a discussion on the House floor, we don't have discussions on talk shows on TV or radio discussing those grants.

Billions of dollars are given out every year by the Federal Government to local groups and local projects, everything from building highways to supporting local initiatives. There is no discussion of that.

There is no oversight of that as such. But here, when a Member decides that he or she knows what is good for their district, we have to attack it. But again, the important point to note here as far as making an argument is that the argument was made that the process was not right, notwithstanding Mr. Obey having changed the system. Now we are being told that no matter what we do, the earmark is just not good.

I wonder if the gentleman is going to be supported by all other Members of his party who asked this chairman in writing for earmarks and were granted those earmarks. I wonder how they feel about this, and if they agree with you that all earmarks are bad.

Overall we have a diversity of projects in this bill. They touch urban and rural America, all regions of the country, women and minorities, as well as both sides of the aisle. We have technical assistance for start-up businesses, technology training, business attraction programs, small business incubators and job skills development. Members of this House have been able to identify many commendable projects.

The projects that the amendment's proponent is targeting are important projects to those Members and those communities.

I would say to the gentleman to really rethink this approach. If this approach is, with all due respect to him, a message for the 6:00 news, fine, I can't argue with that. You have done well, you have won on that issue.

This is really about saying that each individual colleague that surrounds you on your side and on this side does not know what is best for their district and that the process that we used to come to this point is a process that does not take into account everything that we could be worried about. Also, that it is not a process that has allowed Members to put forth their vision and at the same time have committee staff and other Members check to make sure. This may come as a shock to some Members, but there were projects where we felt either the vision or in some cases even the title had to be dealt with because we didn't want to do the wrong thing and we certainly didn't want to embarrass anyone. We did not accept every single project.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her comments and for raising these important consumer protection issues. I totally agree with her that this Congress must place a new emphasis on consumers and ensuring that defective and dangerous products, particularly from overseas, are kept from the marketplace. I commend the gentlelady for raising these issues. I look forward to working with you.

I may say that if you were to look at our bill and read through the language in the bill, the one thing you will see is a desire by this chairman and the subcommittee to begin anew to look at a whole new way of how consumers should be protected. I think that for too long in this country, we kind of pushed away consumerism as a true issue. We're coming back to that. This bill speaks strongly to that. I commend you for bringing up these issues.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity we have. For a while it looked like we might not have this opportunity, so I do appreciate being able to challenge these earmarks on the House floor.

As rank-and-file Members, we are able to see certification letters that have been submitted by the requesting Member to the Appropriations Committee. I should point out again, as I did yesterday, we were unable to see the actual request letter, so there is limited information that we have available on these earmarks and what they're for, but there are some that we're able to glean.

Let me just talk about this one a little. This one I actually challenged last year. That's part of the reason I'm coming again is this seems to be an earmark that just keeps coming up again and again for an organization that seems to exist only on earmarks.

This particular amendment would prohibit funding for the Johnstown Area Regional Industries, or JARI, Incubator and Workforce Development Program. Now, I don't know the specifics of the history of JARI, how it was started, I do know, however, that it has received several earmarks over the years.

I also know, among other things, JARI helps companies obtain government funding. Its Web site says, ``JARI's Procurement Technical Assistance Center provides an array of services to assist companies in securing Federal, State and local government contracts and subcontracts.''

So, in essence, what we're doing is sending Federal money to an organization, who then turns around with that money and seeks additional Federal money. I'm just wondering where this stops. How many of these organizations can we fund?

This is not the only organization of its kind, and that's partly what worries me here. We're finding dozens and dozens of organizations like this increasingly over the past couple of years that have been organized and created to secure additional Federal funding. These are earmarks that beget earmarks. These are earmarks incubators. And I don't know how much we can stand of this because the more we have out there, the more it seems to simply spawn other earmarks.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy debating my good friend from New York. My good friend from New York made a point when I challenged one of his earmarks last year that his district has one of the highest poverty rates, or it is number one in the country.

Here I have a map. The red areas show those counties in the country that have experienced persistent poverty over the past 30 years. I should note that virtually all of the earmarks I will be challenging today are not in areas that are covered in the red, certainly not the one in western Pennsylvania today. This is not an area of persistent poverty. This is not an area where we are going in and helping the truly less fortunate.

The gentleman is correct that Members of Congress are, by and large, intelligent. They know how to work the system. I would submit that that is exactly what this is about. When you get an earmark that begets other earmarks, when you are funding organizations set up with the express purpose of getting other Federal moneys or other earmarks, there is something wrong with that picture. There is something wrong with that. Where does that end? That is simply not right.

I would ask the gentleman, this is not the gentleman's earmark. Is the sponsor of the earmark not here to defend the earmark today?

The sponsor of the earmark is not here to defend the earmark today?

That sponsor is Mr. Murtha?

According to the certification letter released, it is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. As I mentioned, this is the second year that I have challenged the same earmark. This is an earmark that begets earmarks. This is going to a business organization whose job it is to receive other Federal moneys. There have been many stories written over the past several weeks about organizations like this that exist to draw other Federal moneys. I don't think that you can put it in terms of this Member knows that district and is trying to alleviate poverty or a situation like that.

This is a situation, it seems to me, where earmarks are begetting more earmarks. We simply can't sustain that. With the deficit that we have, with the situation we are in with the Federal Government, we can't sustain doing this for much longer.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would prevent the Barracks Row Main Street Organization from receiving $.5 million. The certification letter provided by the sponsor of this earmark indicates that these funds will be used to redevelop the Eastern Market Metro Plaza and the triangle park adjacent to it. This is in Washington, D.C., not far from us here on Capitol Hill.

According to its Web site: ``The mission of Barracks Row Main Street is to revitalize 8th Street Southeast as a vibrant commercial corridor reconnecting Capitol Hill to the Anacostia River using historic preservation and the arts and economic development tools.''

In case you weren't aware, Mr. Chairman, Barracks Row was the first commercial center in Washington, D.C. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson selected the site of 8th and I Streets as the first post for the Marine Corps because of its close proximity to the Navy Yard and the U.S. Capitol in case it needed protection. I sometimes wish those marines were around to protect the taxpayer here or funds from flowing from this institution.

Also, according to the Barracks Row Web site, since 1999 there have been more than 50 facades restored, 40 signs replaced, 40 new businesses opened, three new buildings constructed and one streetscape reconstruction completed. All told, the total amount of public and private funds reinvested has been some $19 million. At least a portion of that $19 million has come through Federal earmarks.

The 2006 Transportation appropriation bill included a $750,000 earmark for the redevelopment of Barracks Row Main Street, Inc. That was apparently the same project included in the earmark that I seek to limit today, the redevelopment of the Eastern Market Metro Plaza.

I would submit that the redevelopment of the Metro Plaza would be more appropriately addressed by the authorizers. If the project were authorized, then we should allow the Transportation appropriators to do this bill.

I also note that this Metro Plaza may be about to receive at least its second earmark. How many more will be required? How much longer will we be doing this? I certainly hope that we are not approving a redevelopment earmark today to redevelop last year's redevelopment earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

No, I have not.

I may have. I don't recall.

I believe I have.

To hear this discussion, one would think we were funding the Marines somehow here. We are not. We are not. We are funding, according to the certification letter, ``Funding is to be used for enhancing the Barracks Row Corridor by redeveloping the Eastern Market Metro Plaza.''

This is a commercial development, a commercial venture. Home and retail properties in this area have skyrocketed in the past couple of years. The American way is to leverage the equity you have, either in your business or your home, and redevelop the area. That is how every other area in the country does it, almost all without Federal help.

Just because it is here, and I would like to get there and watch the Marines march, but let me say again, this has nothing to do with the Marines marching in Barracks Row. This has to do with subsidizing a commercial enterprise, one that could do just fine on its own, and particularly in this area. I couldn't think of buying in that area. It is far too expensive.

I appreciate the notion of helping out and the sentimentality of Marines marching, and all of us want to help the armed services, but that is not what this is about. This is about subsidizing a commercial venture, and it is not something we should be involved in in this instance.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $231,000 from going to the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, otherwise known as SPUR. This organization claims to be San Francisco's preeminent public-policy think tank and claims that through research analysis, public education and advocacy, SPUR promotes good planning and good government.

The question we are asked today: Is it good government for the Federal taxpayer to be funding think tanks around the country? You can debate all day long, we only have a couple of minutes here, the merits or demerits of government planning, whether it is a good thing that the suburbs expand or that the policies that this organization promotes are better.

But the question is: Should we be sending Federal taxpayer dollars to an organization with policies that run counter to what some people across the country might think?

I think we should let think tanks think and produce ideas that they want, but let's not support them with Federal funds and take sides in this issue.

As for the specifics of this earmark, according to the sponsor's certification letter, the funding would go towards construction costs associated with a new resource center for small business and community groups in San Francisco. The new resource center will be called the SPUR Urban Center.

SPUR's Web site says, ``As we head into the next 50 years of service to San Francisco, SPUR is proposing its most innovative solution yet: Constructing an urban center, the first of its kind in any city west of Chicago. To reach this goal, SPUR is embarking on a $10 million SPUR Campaign for the Urban Center.''

I suppose this funding is meant to help that campaign to raise the $10 million necessary to build that urban center. The list of donors to this campaign is about four pages long. It includes very sizable donations from some very well-known corporations and organizations. It appears to me and to anyone who reads or looks at the Web site that this fundraising campaign is going fairly well.

Why again are we putting taxpayers on the hook to help with this effort? The organization and center look to have a local focus and policy approaches that too many taxpayers from across the country might have reservations about.

Now, I am familiar with the think tank world. Before coming to Congress, I spent 7 years at the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix. I suppose that there are a lot of people here who would be uncomfortable with the positions that the Goldwater Institute took. I would not presume to get Federal funding for the think tank that I used to work for or any other conservative think tank. That wouldn't be right. I don't think it is right here for any Member to seek money for a think tank at home that might or might not produce ideas that run counter or might be supported by Members here. Think tanks should think on their own without support from the Federal Government in this instance.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the gentleman from New York, is this his earmark?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

For the record, I believe this is the Speaker's earmark. It would have been nice to have a colloquy like we were having on this earmark with the sponsor of the earmark. That is what would be nice about this process, if we could actually have the sponsor of the earmark come and explain it.

I would like to know, for example, taking the example that the gentleman gave that I seem to be willing to let the Federal Government, the agencies, go ahead and spend this money, I would be upset if the Federal agencies designated this themselves. They shouldn't give out money like this.

If the Federal agencies responsible for disbursing this kind of money gave money to the Goldwater Institute, I would expect the gentleman and everybody else to say that is not a proper use of money. I would do that if it was put in by a Member as well. It is not who spends the money; it is whether this money should be spent by the Federal Government.

I am not defending the Bush administration's spending of money that is earmarked. I have noted many times that much of the money in the Homeland Security bill that is spent in my district is not a wise use of Federal taxpayer dollars. It shouldn't be spent.

The question is not who spends it. We shouldn't use that as an excuse saying that the Federal agencies will misspend the money, so we have a right to do that as well. We have a right to misspend that money and designate think tanks who should receive it just because they might do the same thing over there.

Our role is to authorize, appropriate, and conduct oversight. My issue is that we have done far too little authorizing, far too much appropriating, and far too little oversight. Oversight needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I can assure you that I have been called many things during this effort to shine the light on some Federal earmarks and to try to promote a little accountability. I am prepared after this amendment to answer to the name ``Grinch'' and head back up to my mountain just north of Who-ville.

This amendment would prevent $129,000 from being used by the Mitchell County Development Foundation for the Home for the Perfect Christmas Tree Project.

The Mitchell County Development Foundation is a nonprofit dedicated to creating jobs and strengthening the educational system, as well as promoting tourism in Mitchell County.

It has been reported that the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project is an economic development initiative in economically distressed Mitchell County.

According to the project's Web site, author Gloria Houston gave the rights to her award-winning children's book, ``The Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree,'' to the town of Spruce Pine, North Carolina, in 2003.

To help with the economic challenges facing the region following the loss of manufacturing jobs, the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree Project was created to assist entrepreneurs selling handmade crafts and products based on the book.

The money included in this earmark would go towards doubling the retail space available for the gift shop selling products like Christmas tree ornaments, lanterns, handmade soaps, et cetera.

I have no doubt that Mitchell County is having tough times economically. I don't belittle that fact. It sounds like they are. And I don't dispute the fact that they may be home to the perfect Christmas tree either, although Arizona has some very nice ones.

What I do doubt is that there is a Federal role here in doling out funds to the Mitchell County Development Foundation.

First, from the sponsor's certification letter, we learn that these funds are requested because the project is expected to double to include 60 licensed product makers in 2007. If this project is successful, does it still need taxpayer assistance?

Additionally, according to the USDA's Economic Research Service, there are nearly 400 persistently poor counties in the U.S. These are counties with 20 percent or more of their populations living in poverty for the last 30 years. These counties comprise 12 percent of U.S. counties and 4 percent of the population.

Are we to assume that the taxpayers should dig into their wallets and find ways of providing hundreds of thousands of dollars for each of these counties as a means of dealing with economic hardship? We simply can't do that. We simply can't cure every ill out there.

I would submit it is often said that this bill has become a Christmas tree. Unfortunately, this bill has a Christmas tree. I would think it is simply not a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

May I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the Chairman.

I think the spirit of Christmas seems to have broken out here, with Democrats agreeing with Republicans and dogs and cats living together and everything else. I'll probably get beat soundly on this amendment.

Let me simply say in defense of the gentleman from North Carolina, we would likely not be in this situation where we're debating earmarks on the floor had he not persistently for 3 days helped in the effort to make sure that there is transparency here. And you can be for earmarks or against earmarks. But I think we ought to all be for transparency, and I think that's the message that he helped and very persuasively brought to the floor during

those 3 days. I appreciate his efforts there, all for the opportunity to be flogged in this fashion.

I would simply say, and, like I say, I don't want to belittle the economic problems in Mitchell County, but I should point out again there are 400 counties around the country comprising 12 percent of all U.S. counties, 4 percent of the U.S. population, that are in persistent poverty. When you pick like this, we're picking certain winners and losers who are to get Federal funding instead of recognizing that there is opportunity cost to funding as well.

Mr. Chairman, this is another rerun amendment, because this bill contains another rerun earmark. I came last year to challenge the same earmark, and it's back.

This is the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center. It's located in Pomona, California, and more than one Member has been involved in the effort to secure earmark funding for this conference center.

According to the Web site, ``Fairplex is home to the annual L.A. County Fair and more than 300 other events each year. Included are consumer and trade shows, meetings, expositions, conventions, inter- track wagering, sporting events and agricultural events.'' Its Web site says that Fairplex is governed by the Los Angeles County Fair Association. The association is self-supporting and does not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body.

Now, Fairplex may not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body, but it has had its share of Federal funding over the years, which begs the question, is the association really self- supporting or not?

With a steady stream of earmark funding for the organization, I wonder if it is really dependent on this funding. Would Fairplex or the association be able to sustain its operation without annual earmarks? If it would, why do we need to do it in that case? Why would we have an organization that's either dependent on continued earmarks or one that could exist just fine without them?

Again, there are about 300 events at Fairplex every year. This year it hosted an international wine and spirits competition and an international extra virgin olive oil competition. It will have a 4th of July celebration next week. There is a Sheraton Suites hotel on the Fairplex campus.

With all of these sources of income, I really doubt that Fairplex needs a stream of taxpayer dollars that have come their way virtually every year. Why, this again begs the question, why are we doing this? Why is Federal money going here for a commercial venture? What makes Los Angeles County Fairgrounds more deserving than, say, Yazoo County, Mississippi; Cook County, Illinois or Slope County, North Dakota?

We certainly cannot fund every county fairground in the country. By choosing one or a few, we are picking winners and losers among them. I would appreciate an explanation as to how, out of the thousands of earmark requests that come, the committee narrows its list to a few hundred like this one in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

I have great respect for the gentlelady, as she knows. This is just one of many projects like this.

Mr. Chairman, again, I would simply make the point that the gentlelady mentioned, that there are millions and millions and millions of dollars contributed by State and local governments to this effort. There are millions of dollars that come in commercial transactions of conferences that are presented. This is simply $250,000. Why are we doing it at all? It clearly isn't dependent on the $250,000, I believe. Last year, because we didn't do earmarks in many of these bills, it didn't receive the funding. It's still up and going just fine.

The question is why do we do this? Why does the committee feel it proper to actually designate funding for something like this when we have such dire needs elsewhere in the Federal budget?

That's what we are here for today. That's why we are challenging earmarks like this, particularly with this bill.

This bill, with financial services, in my view, it's kind of the soft underbelly of the earmarking world, where you have economic development earmarks, that you can justify economic development anywhere in the country. Spending money, by its very nature, generates economic activity. So you could justify any earmark anywhere if you simply say it generates economic activity, it's important to my district.

But when we do it in this fashion, we simply pick winners and losers out there. I wouldn't think that's our place.

Mr. Chairman, this would prohibit $231,000 for Advantage West Economic Development Group, that's the Certified Entrepreneurial Community Program.

Many of the earmarks in this bill are for economic development organizations, business incubators, workforce development programs and the like. But just because there are hundreds of similar earmarks in this bill doesn't mean that providing this kind of earmark for economic development is okay.

In doing research on the different earmarks, many of them begin to sound very much alike. But this one, the Advantage West Economic Development Group stood apart. Its list of corporate sponsors reads like the ``who's who'' list of influential and well-heeled entities, Bankers Branch & Trust, BellSouth, Duke Energy, Grant Thornton, Qualcomm, Spring, UBS, Verizon, Wachovia and other well-known corporations.

The listed funding partners are a very recognizable list as well, at least in Washington: the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Endowment of the Arts, the U.S. Department of Commerce and, of course, through the virtue of this earmark, the U.S. Congress.

The Advantage West Economic Development Group Web site boasts that publications such as Money, Kiplinger's, Outside, American Style, Modern Maturity and Forbes have ranked western North Carolina as a top destination for living, working, recreation, arts, technology and retirement. That's pretty nice advertisement.

The group highlights the following among other achievements, this group receiving the earmark by the way. During 2005, 2006 the Advantage West Economic Development Group's efforts in the advanced manufacturing sector contributed to economic development announcements of 2,345 new jobs and $902.5 million in capital investments. That's a lot of money. And they do pretty well here.

The group helped increase the economic impact of tourism in western North Carolina 53 percent since 1995.

I would simply make the point, why in the world, with a group with these kinds of backers in the private sector, does the Federal taxpayer need to turn around and spend $231,000 of taxpayer dollars?

As I mentioned, there is opportunity cost when you take this money out of the hands of individual taxpayers, send it to Washington, and then let Washington decide who are the winners and who are the losers, who will receive these kinds of economic development earmarks. That's not a very efficient way to distribute money for capital investment. I am glad the sponsor of the earmark is here.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman whose earmark this is. And I also have great fear. I stood in left field when he was at the plate earlier this week in the congressional baseball game, and I'm glad that I didn't have to experience anything hit out there.

But I would simply make the case again. The gentleman mentioned that small business makes up 95 percent of all business starts out there. And I would submit that 99 percent of those do it without any help from the Federal Government at all.

And when the Federal Government does put money out there, I mean, 95 percent, I don't know what percentage but an overwhelming percentage, certainly, without earmark help. But when we do this kind of earmark, we simply pick winners and losers out there. Certain sets of businesses, certain industries, certain individual businesses are helped when others are at a disadvantage because they don't receive that kind of help.

So I would simply say that we shouldn't be doing this as the Federal Government when we have such demand on our scarce budget here for other purposes. And we shouldn't be earmarking for this kind of purpose.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used to pay for renovations to a small business incubator at West Virginia University.

Like so many of the other organizations listed in the earmark section of this bill, the purpose of this small business incubator is to promote economic development activities by supporting early stage businesses with space, facilities and support services.

The West Virginia University Small Business Incubator is over 5,000 square feet of renovated space in the Chestnut Ridge Research Building on the campus of West Virginia University.

The businesses that are tenants of the incubator program have access to the staff of professionals, trained interns and West Virginia University resources. Businesses receive guidance in the areas of accounting, advertising, graphic design, information technology, finance, corporate services, marketing, Web design and Web development.

That's a lot of advantages they have. I simply don't believe the Federal Government needs to be in the business of helping them further or funding private companies in this way. This is a

form of corporate welfare that so many Members in other settings rail against over and over again.

The National Business Incubator Association is an organization that has 905 member organizations, mostly in the United States. There is certainly no reasonable argument that we should be funding all business incubators in this country. So how do we justify funding just a couple of them in this bill? How are they more deserving of the special treatment that we give them in this bill?

How should I explain to the taxpayers in my district, or other districts, that they're subsidizing business development projects in West Virginia, or any other State for that matter?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again let me just make the point again that there are too many earmarks in this bill that are for business incubators. There are really in many cases earmark incubators. These are earmarks that beget other earmarks. Many are going to organizations that receive additional earmarks or are there for the purpose of receiving additional earmarks. This is one business incubator, and there are hundreds and hundreds of business incubators, 905 in the association. How do we choose to fund just this one? We are picking winners and losers here. We are deciding who is worthy and who is not, and I simply don't think that is fair. It is not a wise use of taxpayer dollars. This business incubator, given the other partners involved, it seems it would be fine without Federal involvement. And I think that we should test that proposition and not fund this earmark.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend from Arizona for offering this amendment. It gives me an opportunity to explain the importance of this project and this funding to the Members of this body.

I am actually very much in favor of transparency through the appropriations process. I have spoken a number of times here on the House floor about that. I think it is important that Members can judge for themselves the funds that we are spending as the Federal Government. It is a very serious business we are in of spending taxpayer dollars, and I don't take that lightly.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about the Mitchell County Development Foundation and the problems and challenges that Mitchell County is going through, but their hope and the solution they are putting forward.

Mitchell County, as the amendment sponsor mentions, is a very hard- hit county. If you look at this graph of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina, we have been hard hit over the last 20 years in the loss of manufacturing jobs due to Federal trade agreements, to a large degree. We are going through a transition period of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina.

Furthermore, in Mitchell County, which was a manufacturing county, you can look at this listing of the job losses they have had over the last 10 years. In the last 5 years, Mitchell County has lost 2,500 jobs. Now, that may not seem like much to big city folks, but to a small, rural Appalachian county with a workforce of 7,500 people, it is devastating. It is absolutely devastating.

When you are in a rural community, you have to figure out ways to innovate, to actually keep your people making a living. What Mitchell County has done through their development foundation is come up with a way to do that, to take these craftsmen who worked in textiles and furniture, to actually help them create a small business. And through this project, 51 small businesses have been created, two-thirds in my district.

But this is a small, rural county, and they are trying to do the best they can through an innovative process. This small amount of Federal money will help them in a number of ways, such as access other grants and bring in more knowledge about this process and about what is happening in this county, to bring more funding and resources to bear for this county.

Mitchell County has the third highest unemployment rate in the State of North Carolina. It has a 38 percent dropout rate in their high schools. And what they're trying to do through this business incubator is create small businesses so that those unemployed can find employment. Beyond that, they are also trying to use the resources that they gain from selling their products to provide scholarships for these high school students, to encourage them to stay in school. This is a good project and is a worthy use of Federal taxpayer dollars and I'm proud to stand in the well of this House and to defend this and tell my colleagues that it's worthwhile for the taxpayers to spend this money.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Absolutely.

There's already been a real influx of interest in giving grants to this. Right now there's about three or $400,000 that is contingent upon this to a large degree.

If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to correct the chairman on what I said over those torturous 3 days, in your words, on this House floor. I was simply asking for earmarks to be public.

I thank the chairman.

To close on this matter, Laura Bush, the First Lady, decides what the theme is for the White House Christmas, and she decided this last Christmas it would be the Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, the Gloria Houston book that we're discussing here. Gloria Houston, who grew up in the mountains of western North Carolina, my district, who gave her book to this community for their business incubator, and it's unfortunate that there's so much discussion here on the House floor about this business incubator, but it does bring to light what is important for this community.

Laura Bush, the First Lady, said at the time: ``This is a very wonderful American story. They all worked together, the people in the town, to figure out a new industry for themselves.''

I'm trying to assist in that and I think the taxpayers should assist in that. And I'll tell you why. Mitchell County has been broken by trade agreements made here by the Federal Government. And when the Federal Government breaks it, they should help fix it. And that's all we're trying to do. This small amount of taxpayer dollars can help enormously.

I submit for the Record the USA Today story about Mitchell County and their recovery.

[From USA Today, Dec. 5, 2006]

Town Hangs Hope on Holiday Trees

Project Spruces Up Morale After Layoffs

(By Kathy Kiely)

Washington.--In Gloria Houston's 1988 children's classic,

The Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, a combination of

pluck, tenacity and never-say-die optimism salvages the

holidays for an impoverished little girl.

This year, residents of a small town in the same

Appalachian hills that inspired Houston's story are hoping to

reproduce its magic for their hard-luck community.

During the past four years, closings and layoffs at local

textile and furniture mills have eliminated more than 2,500

jobs in western North Carolina's Mitchell County. ``We have

lost one-third of our manufacturing base,'' says Shirley

Hise, director of the local Chamber of Commerce. ``It has

been devastating for our county.''

Even so, the people of Mitchell County are experiencing

what local congressman Patrick McHenry calls ``a glimmer of

hope.'' Houston's generosity and Hise's hard work are helping

county residents tap a vein of creativity and find new ways

to make a living. And this holiday season, Americans can help

them out--and, at the same time, decorate their homes in

presidential style.

Last week, when she hosted the annual unveiling of holiday

decorations at the White House, first lady Laura Bush went

out of her way to give a plug to the handmade ornaments

provided by Mitchell County artists. ``This is a very

wonderful American story,'' she said. ``They all worked

together, the people in the town, to figure out a new

industry for themselves, and they came up with making these

wonderful ornaments.''

The media-savvy first lady even provided some direction for

the TV crews on hand: ``When you're in the west reception

hall or in the visitors' reception room on the east side, I

hope you'll be able to get there to get some B-roll of those

trees and see these beautiful, handmade ornaments.''

Mitchell County's contribution to the White House holiday

decor is the result of a brainstorm Houston had in 2003 after

being invited to be grand marshal of the Christmas parade in

Spruce Pine, Mitchell's county seat.

After hearing about the community's problems, Houston

donated the rights of her book to Spruce Pine and suggested

local officials market the town as ``the home of the perfect

Christmas tree.'' Last year, the community cut the ribbon on

a retail store featuring handcrafted items inspired by the

book. They're all made by local artisans.

These aren't amateur holiday fair items: The curvilinear

red, green and walnut Carolina ``snowflakes'' hanging at the

White House are the creations of Billie Ruth Sudduth, a

basket weaver whose work is displayed at the juried

Smithsonian craft show. The White House trees also feature

handblown glass ornaments by Virgil Jones, whose work is on

display in galleries in Asheville, N.C.

Sudduth taught several local women how to make the

snowflakes so they could help her keep up with demand. At a

basket-weaving class she taught to raise money for the local

homeless shelter, ``I saw some talent,'' she says.

No one is suggesting a few cottage industries will replace

the thousands of manufacturing jobs that once powered

Mitchell County's economy. McHenry, who called the project a

glimmer of hope, also notes it's not a light at the end of

the tunnel.

But project participants say it has helped lift the gloom

that enveloped Mitchell County after all the layoffs. ``This

project has really turned the county upside down with

excitement,'' Sudduth says.

Patti Jensen, who manages the retail outlet in Spruce Pine,

says her biggest problem initially was persuading local

craftspeople to provide her with enough inventory to keep

pace with sales.

``They were so skeptical . . . that anyone would want to

buy what they make,'' Jensen says.

After one of Marquitta Holdsclaw's art glass plates sold

for $600 at a local silent auction, Jensen says she found the

artist in the parking lot in tears. ``It just blew her away

that anyone valued what she was doing,'' Jensen says.

Holdsclaw's plates are available for as little as $39.50

through the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree store. An

online catalog can be found at

homeoftheperfectchristmastree.org.

Working on their own poses challenges that employees of big

companies never face, the artisans concede, especially ``the

very real problem of health insurance,'' says Sudduth, 61.

She says it costs $700 a month to maintain her coverage.

Jim Buchanan, a woodworker who built the interior of the

Perfect Christmas Tree shop and designs items for the

catalog, estimates he's making half of what he did before the

Henredon furniture plant where he worked was shuttered in

2004. But there are other compensations. ``I'm making the

type of furniture I like to make, so it's more enjoyable,''

Buchanan says.

Mike Queen, a local metal worker who is trying to grow his

artisanal blacksmithing business, agrees. ``I'm enthused

about it,'' says Queen, who employs several people laid off

from local plants. ``It's good for the community. There's so

many small towns in the country that seem like they're

dying.''

The idea went by the book

Gloria Houston, whose book inspired the Home of the Perfect

Christmas Tree store in Spruce Pine, N.C., says research she

did as a graduate student prompted her to suggest the

project.

Houston, a former Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings scholar at the

University of South Florida, says she was researching the

namesake of her fellowship when it struck her that Rawlings

had inadvertently thrown a lifeline to her tiny Florida

hometown, the setting for her classic novel, The Yearling.

``I realized Cross Creek would have long since disappeared

had it not been for The Yearling,'' Houston says.

``Everything there had something to do with it.''

Years later, she decided to see whether her 1988 children's

book, The Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree, could do the

same for her North Carolina Appalachian home.

Houston's parents operated a country store in western North

Carolina for more than 50 years. In writing the book, she was

inspired by stories of their circumstances (her father told

her about once giving up his Christmas dime so his sister

could have a doll).

Not wanting the same crushing poverty to reappear in the

region, Houston donated rights to the book to Mitchell

County, and the Christmas tree store project was born. ``I'm

so proud of the people here and their many skills and

talents,'' she says. ``Now they're being put to work in their

own county.''

In closing, I want to tell you, Mitchell County is going through struggles, and I appreciate this opportunity to bring attention to this. It is a worthwhile project. It is a worthy project. And I think worthy projects that have a Federal element to it should be funded by the Federal Government, and we should be interested in doing that. Not overspending, but spending wisely and allowing Members to step forward and publicly say what they think is a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I care very much about that. And I care very much about helping Mitchell County rebound, to bring down that dropout rate in their high schools, to get businesses growing and to reduce their unemployment rate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds from being used for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission in Illinois.

The committee report says that this earmark is providing $231,000 for this local project. According to the committee report in the letter requesting the earmark, the earmark has been requested by Congressman Jackson of Illinois for the purpose of ``minority and small business development and procurement opportunities.''

According to the Web site for this organization, the organization was established by Congressman Jackson, and the executive director currently is a gentleman by the name of Richard Bryant. Richard Bryant is apparently on the staff of Congressman Jackson and is his deputy district administrator, according to records. Mr. Bryant has stated this week that he is not paid in his position as executive director of the airport commission and that he is there because of efforts to build a third airport in the Chicago area that is strongly supported by Congressman Jackson. He also said that the money from the earmark would be used to study ways to make sure that local workers and minorities are hired when and if a new airport is actually built.

Also, Mr. Chairman, according to Mr. Jackson's Web site, this organization exists to try to promote a third airport in the Chicago area and that last year many of its activities were related to advertising on behalf of that airport. To quote directly from the Web site, and this is from an article published in April of 2006: ``Last month the commission called on the south suburbs to donate a total of $250,000 towards the advertising campaign scheduled to begin June 1.'' It goes on to say that about $40,000 is budgeted for billboards. The remaining funds would pay for direct mailings to voters in the region and radio commercials and for yard signs closer to election day.

So it would appear that the activities at least last year of this commission were related to trying to drum up support or actually lobbying on behalf of, or certainly advocating on behalf of, getting public support and, I presume, elected representative support for this airport.

I would also like to point out that there is a press release from Congressman Jackson dated November 16, 2006, in which he says: ``So even with the change of leadership in Congress, I won't pursue Federal funds for the Abraham Lincoln National Airport. Chicago's share of Federal dollars are already committed to O'Hare modernization.''

Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest that this earmark does not appear appropriate; that a Member of Congress directs money to an organization they set up, run by someone who is an employee of the office of that Congressman, and whose purpose appears to be to advocate on behalf of an airport that does not currently exist. If the airport does currently exist or whatever, also, it appears to be in contradiction to the Congressman's own statement as of November of 2006 that he would not pursue Federal funds for this airport in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the gentleman's desire to close, and I am happy to do that. But I believe that he should at least state some of the reasons that he believes this earmark is justified so I can at least have the opportunity to rebut those before he closes. But I am perfectly willing to allow him to have the last word.

I suppose I will anticipate, perhaps, what the gentleman is going to say. I understand that the gentleman from Illinois may suggest that the Ethics Committee has approved that his district employee be the executive director of this commission, and I would take him at his word and assume that is the case.

I don't think that is the issue here. We are talking about over $200,000 of taxpayers' funds here, and I think the question at issue is whether or not that is an appropriate use of Federal funds and what these Federal funds are going to be used for. If he is suggesting, as some of these reports indicated, that these are going to be spent on minority and business development procurement opportunities for an airport that doesn't yet exist, my question would be how can you have hiring or whatever opportunities for an airport that doesn't exist yet and won't exist even if it were approved today for some number of years?

Is the gentleman willing to say that there will be no further advertising, no further lobbying, no further expenditures of that sort?

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funds in the bill from being used for the Wittenberg University East Asian Study Center. The committee report provides there will be $500,000 spent on this local project.

Now, Wittenberg University is a private college. On all these earmark things that I am bringing up and that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) has brought up, it is not an issue of whether this is a good university, I am sure it is a great university; or whether this is a worthy, charitable endeavor, I am sure it is a worthy, charitable endeavor. It is a question of whether or not it is appropriate for taxpayers' funds.

On the last amendment that I had talked about, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) made a very eloquent report of why he believes there should be a third airport in Illinois. But that really wasn't the point, as to whether there should be a third. I am not qualified. I don't know whether there should be a third airport in Chicago or not.

The point was, is it appropriate to use Federal taxpayer funds to fund an organization that you set up that is for the purpose of basically applying political pressure to create this airport when it doesn't exist. I think that is clearly not appropriate.

In this case here, this is to be used ``for the development of an undergraduate interdisciplinary program in international business, with a focus on the field of experience in Asia.''

According to the Web site, this East Asian Studies Journal has existed for 27 years. This is the 27th consecutive annual edition of this particular publication. So this center, it would appear, has existed for 27 years in this university.

Again, Mr. Chairman, this is actually a Lutheran university. I am on the board of advisors of a Lutheran university in my district. I think they do very fine things. I just don't think it is appropriate to use taxpayer money.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I will just say that the certification actually says the funding will be used for the establishment of a center. Perhaps that is in error.

It says for the establishment of a center. Whether it is the establishment or the expansion, I just respectfully suggest that this is more in the nature of support for a university rather, than support for a project which has a Federal nexus and requires Federal tax dollars.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, here, because this is an amendment that he suggested right here on the floor of the House on June 13, earlier this month.

During debate that evening, which was the evening in which it was decided that we would make earmarks public and that they would be included in the bill, Mr. Obey said, ``I want to make clear, I hate the earmarking process. I absolutely detest it.''

Further on in his comments, the gentleman from Wisconsin said, ``And I am going to be very interested in seeing which Members vote for the amendment that I intend to attach to every appropriations bill which would call for a total elimination on earmarks. I want to see how many of you actually vote for it.'' Well, I want the chairman of the Appropriations Committee to know that I agree with his comments.

In the previous bill that we had before this House yesterday, the Interior bill, this amendment did not show up. So I took it upon myself to offer this amendment, which the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had suggested that he was going to offer on every appropriations bill. So that is, in fact, the amendment that I have offered.

What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is it would strike all 148 earmarks that are currently in this bill from the bill, and thereby would save $33.71 million of taxpayer money.

I hope that the chairman will support me in this effort. Obviously I am offering this amendment. I intend to vote for this amendment, and I hope the good chairman of the Appropriations Committee would join me in this offering and in voting for it as well.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, we did fight hard for this transparency, and I am glad we have this transparency. But the reason we have it is not simply to rubber-stamp every earmark that the Chairs of committees decide in their judgment to put in.

Let me quote again the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey, on June 13, 2007. He said, ``The reason I hate earmarks is because they suck everybody in. They suck them into the idea that we have to be ATM machines for our districts.''

Mr. Chairman, I don't think we want to be ATM machines for our districts. This amendment which has been suggested by Mr. Obey, I don't believe he or certainly I necessarily think that all 148 of these are bad. However, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee believes as he said, ``I hate the earmarking process, I absolutely detest it,'' then maybe we should start to reform it. This is a way to reform it. This is a way to change it. Let's just take them all out for now, and let's talk about a way that perhaps something can be done in a way in which we are not ATM machines for our districts.

By the way, by doing that, we will save the taxpayers $33.7 million, which I would imagine they will be able to use in their pockets in their districts as they want to and I would argue in a better, more effective way than we will, even though we represent them.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the FY08 House Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee bill. As you know, this will be the first of the 11 bills that the House Appropriations Committee have considered that will have all of its earmarks in it as it first comes to the floor; and one in which all of its earmarks are publicly disclosed. We have ushered in a new era in Congress, and it is an era of which I am proud.

I have attended all of the hearings the subcommittee has had this Congress, and have enjoyed my work not only with Chairman Jose Serrano, but with his staff of Dale Oak, Bob Bonner, Frank Carrillo, Karyn Kendall, and Deborah Bilek. We have had to make many difficult decisions. But I am proud to say that we have been able to make some major accomplishments. Among them include: CDFI/Bank Enterprise Fund-- $54,000,000.

Along with Chairman Serrano, we were able to get an increase for funding for both the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, CDFI, and the Bank Enterprise Fund. Both of these programs are of vital importance to our Nation's urban areas, and help improve access to a wider array of financial services in distressed communities. Fourteen million dollars of this fund is to go to the Bank Enterprise Fund.

II. SBA Microloan Program and Microloan Technical Support--$17,000,000

Small businesses are the engine that drives the American economy. This supports funding of the Small Business Administration's Microloan program and technical support for the microloan program of the SBA. The microloan program will receive a total of $17 million ($2.5 million for loan subsidies and $14.5 million for technical assistance). The President's budget proposed to terminate technical assistance and to provide no subsidy for microloans.

I am also pleased that we were able to get report language that emphasizes and enhances the role of the Federal Communications Commission toward ensuring that all ethnic minorities, senior citizens and the disabled will not have blank television sets when the whole country goes from an analog signal to totally digital signals on February 17, 2009. Also, we were able to ensure that the Department of the Treasury step up their enforcement of companies that use predatory mortgages and loans on senior citizens, ethnic minorities, and the disabled. Not only do we have language in the report that emphasizes this need, we provide these agencies with the funding they need to do what America needs done.

Finally, I want to discuss one area of particular interest to me. The bill, under its section regulating the District of Columbia, has a cap on what attorneys can bill for families of disabled children who need assistance under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA. No where else in our country is this the case. This is a shame. During subcommittee and full committee consideration of the bill, I wanted to offer an amendment to remove this section. However, my staff and I have been working with Mayor Adrian Fenty, and will not advocate the removal of the provision this fiscal year. Mayor Fenty agrees with me that this provision should be removed; by the next fiscal year, language that does the least amount of harm to the citizens of the District of Columbia and which enhances the quality of life for all disabled children and their

families should be completed. I ask unanimous consent to insert as part of the Congressional Record a letter dated June 26, 2007 that I received from Mayor Fenty addressing this problem, which will follow my remarks.

I would like to say one word about earmarks. What has been missed in this debate is the fact that in this bill, like most of the bills that have come to the floor with earmarks, a good number of these earmarks are earmarks requested by the President. This bill contains $1.3 billion worth of earmarks specifically requested by the President for a wide variety of projects throughout the nation, mainly for projects by the General Services Administration. It seems to me to be hypocritical for the minority to have so much energy to criticize the earmarks of other Members of Congress, especially those of us in the Majority, while offering not even a hint of outrage at the earmarks offered by the President.

This subcommittee covers over 700 individual agencies. We have so much authority, the Chairman has to give us cards with what it is over which we have jurisdiction. It is my desire that we can keep all amendments to this, and the rest of the bills that my colleagues and I have been working so hard on the House Appropriations Committee, to a minimum; that these bills move as quickly as possible through the House and Senate; and that President Bush signs these bills into law so that we can continue to work for the American people.

Executive Office of the Mayor,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2007.

Hon. Carolyn C. Kilpatrick,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Kilpatrick: I write today on an issue

of great importance to my city, and about which I understand

you have a particular interest--that is, inclusion by

Congress of a cap on the amount of attorneys' fees that can

be paid by the District of Columbia government in special

education cases in our annual appropriations bill.

As you know, I opposed the cap when I was a member of the

City Council, and, in principle, I continue to oppose the cap

as a matter of policy. However, as Mayor, I am obligated to

protect the fiscal health of the city, which was in such dire

condition for a number of years in the 1990s that Congress

intervened by creating the Financial Control Board, and I

take that responsibility to my constituents very seriously.

As part of that intervention, Congress also created an

independent Chief Financial Officer for the District, who is

required to certify that the District's local funds budget is

balanced each year before it is sent to Capitol Hill. My FY08

budget has been by certified by the CFO.

In order to meet the deadlines of the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees, as well as the Federal Office of

Management and Budget, the District's local budget is

normally developed a full year before Congress takes final

action on it in the fall (or, as was the case last year,

after the new fiscal year has begun). When a new mayor is

elected, modifications to that budget are made during the

transition and in January to reflect his or her priorities.

Nevertheless, the District's local budget for FY08 was

completed months before the potential for the attorneys' fee

cap to be eliminated was raised in Congress. As a result, the

budget that I submitted to the Council, and that was approved

by that body in early June, does not include the multi-

million dollar increase in attorney payments that the

District would be required to pay if the cap is lifted this

year.

I am deeply committed to improving the entire public

education system in the District, so that every child in this

city has the opportunity to reach his or her potential, in

terms of personal fulfillment and financial independence.

That desire extends one hundred . . . June 14, and I

appointed a new chancellor, Michelle Rhee, on that same day.

A key area that I identified when I hired her as one where

significant progress must be made in her first year on the

job was special education.

However, the improvements to the special education system

that must be made to reduce the number of students and

parents who are unsatisfied with the system and seek legal

recourse as a result cannot be made overnight. In addition,

because our local budget for FY08 is completed, if the cap is

lifted now, we would have to reprogram much needed funds from

other areas of the schools budget to cover the expected

increase in attorneys' fees. For these reasons, I am asking

that you allow the fee cap to remain in place for the coming

fiscal year--so that, with the Council's help, I have the

opportunity to develop a budget for FY09 that assumes removal

of the fee cap, prospectively, and accounts for the cost of

that policy change. At that point, I can assure you that I

would support removal of the fee cap for special education

cases brought after the beginning of that fiscal year.

I greatly appreciate your consideration of this request and

would be happy to discuss the matter with you further at your

convenience. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to

share my views on the policy, as well as its fiscal impact,

with you.

Sincerely,

Adrian M. Fenty,

Mayor.