I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I think it's somewhat ironic. Listening to the words of the gentlewoman from Florida reminds me of a comment that Machiavelli made centuries ago. He said: ``For this is the tragedy of man--…
I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's somewhat ironic. Listening to the words of the gentlewoman from Florida reminds me of a comment that Machiavelli made centuries ago. He said: ``For this is the tragedy of man-- circumstances change, but he does not.''
It's fascinating that the Democrats ran on a platform of wanting to bring about the most ethical Congress ever, but, frankly, I have to say it's a sham based upon this approach to earmark reform. This is not earmark reform.
In fact, the reason we were here last night, contrary to the comments from the other speakers, was to protect the American people and to protect their right to accountability for every dollar that is spent in this Chamber. Let's look for a moment on the structure of accountability before talking about the validity of earmarks.
Last night, when we asked about the ability to debate specific spending bills, we were told, oh, this is in the guise of transparency, but, of course, you won't be able to vote on the individual earmarks. You can only vote after those have been dropped in after the conference report.
I would have to say this is a most surprising thing. In fact, we were told, with tremendous sincerity on the part of the gentleman from Wisconsin, that, in fact, this would be a wonderful way to protect the people's rights to transparency, and, frankly, wall us completely out of the process.
How is that? Well, I would be able to object to egregious spending. We have seen that in a number of areas through the years on both sides of the aisle. But how would we object to that from my office in Kentucky? I would be able to write a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, the staff members would make the decision on whether that was a legitimate earmark or not.
I have great respect for the staffs that work at all the committees in our offices and the House. But I would like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Members from the other side of the aisle, that last November, in
the election that they claim the American people chose to have a new direction, I didn't see the name of any staff member from Capitol Hill on a Federal ballot anywhere in the United States.
The people who were elected to uphold and defend the Constitution, who were to make sure that the people's money was spent wisely, were not staff members. The staff members were accountable to elected officials. Ultimately, the elected officials have to make those decisions because we are the ones that were accountable to the people.
What will the public know about these earmarks? All they see of them is at the last minute when we get into a position of simply voting up or down on a conference report where we will not have that ability to debate or to discuss those bills.
In fact, let me be clear about this. I don't think earmarks in and of themselves can be bad. They can be very good, but they should all be subject to public debate here in this Chamber on this floor or in this committee where they can be voted on up or down by a majority of Members clearly making a decision and being accountable for those decisions.
There are many good earmarks: investing in public works, creating jobs that can lay a foundation for future growth. The root of this practice is based on the idea there are many funding priorities very specific and unique to districts or regions of the country that should be decided by our elected officials, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, not some person hidden in a cubicle or an office away from the light of scrutiny and accountability.
To say this is bringing an ethical posture to Congress, I beg to differ with that. In fact, I believe what it would do is increase the likelihood of malfeasance on the part of taxpayers' dollars by taking away the direct accountability with Members of Congress.
In the Fourth District, I don't want a faceless bureaucrat to make those decisions. In fact, I am proud of every earmark that I have secured for the Fourth District of Kentucky. I want the people to know that this is how we believe, working with our local leaders, that taxpayer dollars should be reinvested in our communities, how their dollars should be spent that they can see that firsthand and see that return.
However, the process would be significantly improved if every earmark were defined in the bill, their sponsors named and that we have the ability to challenge those and let each Member defend the merits on return and investment to the American taxpayer on each one of them.
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Before I speak, I would like to just share one thing. The gentleman who was just speaking reminds me again of the comment that Machiavelli made that the tragedy of man is that circumstances change, but he does not.
And in all of this rhetoric, I would remind the gentleman we were actually debating a Homeland Security bill, I haven't heard one person answer our reasoned arguments to ask them to defend the appropriations chairmen or the Speaker's approach to earmarks by taking them off the floor and out of committee and removing them from debate and accountability.
I happened to be in the meetings last year where the Republican conference was at work to move to improve the accountability. Certainly, I believe in complete transparency of records, and we have heard nobody defend the chairman's position on this.
I have heard no Democrat get up and defend the chairman's position on earmarks at all. They want to use ad hominem arguments, talk about yesterday. I think the gentleman is right: what happened yesterday, in fact, is history.
So far, to make this the most ethical House in history, I would think that openness and transparency would improve accountability, and not simply contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
We talk a lot about that, but I think that a lot has been created inadvertently from the other side.
The issue is not whether earmarks themselves, it's not whether earmarks themselves are good or bad. It's simply having a mechanism for accountability for the American people so that they can see that.
One perfect example is a large project of national and regional significance that's in my district that affects 71 congressional districts. We worked together in a bipartisan manner through the 109th Congress to secure all of the funding necessary to the lead-up to the construction of the Brent Spence bridge on I-75 that connects Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati. This was not a Republican or Democrat project, it was an American project where many, many Members, ranging from south Florida, all the way to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, up into the Northeast saw their districts, their industries, their jobs affected by that meaningful investment in infrastructure that would benefit the Nation as a whole.
We wanted that accountability. We debated it in public. We talked about it repeatedly. We made the case not only to one another in the House, but to the American people, that there would be a return on investment.
And I think, at the end of the day, that's the real key. Projects like that are not bridges to nowhere. Projects like that in the full disclosure of the light of day show a proper stewardship of the tax resources of the American people that are given to us to spend. But to take it away and not answer the fundamental question, to say that these are tactics to stall for pork, I would respectfully disagree with the comments that have been made, because nobody has defended the fundamental question that accountability, in fact, has been taken away and removed.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stated on March 17, 2006 that ``before Members vote on the bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''
Unfortunately, moving to a concept of omnibus bills or dropping them in at the conference where there's not that room for debate or discussion, I think it creates opportunities that, I won't go so far as to suggest that there's an issue with integrity, but more importantly, as a businessman, as somebody who was a consultant helping companies to maximize their investments, their productivity, to keep their jobs and to grow, there's a greater risk of redundancy. There's a greater risk of waste. There's a greater risk of less efficient ways to go about solving the problem in a particular region.
The benefit of debate and the benefit of dialogue is to give us a synergy that, at the end of the day, will give us results that will benefit the American people. And I think that we've been trusted with the people's money.
This legislation, today, the structure and the reason that we have been put into a position where we have to exercise process to force this debate, is no different than what happened a month ago when a germaneness rule, where the minority had the opportunity to offer alternative opinions that had been in place since 1822; folks who stated that they were respecters of the institution moved to strike that rule, and we were simply informed an hour before it was going to go into effect, and we exercised our rights through procedure to remove all unanimous consent and to move to a place where this had to be brought into the light of day because of the opportunities that were given for Members before.
At the end of the day, that was wisely repealed that there could be some degree of comity and debate. In this same vein now, I think it's important that, rather than returning to the politics of yesteryear, of a bygone era, I think what we need to do is move forward in a spirit of openness.
We live in an information world that's interconnected and open and gives access. Let's give the people access to all the earmarks. Give it to them early. Let Members on both sides of the aisle stand by their projects, justify them to the American people.
And with that, at the end of the day, what we come up with is not a majority or minority solution, not a Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative solution. We come up with an American solution that optimizes the resources that we are entrusted with by the American people.