Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a different kind of July than we usually experience here in Congress. Usually we're doing appropriation bills. We aren't doing them this month. We aren't likely to do any until after the election. Isn't that something? The one responsibility we have here in Congress, pass appropriation bills, we aren't doing until after the election. This might give you an idea why we're not doing that.

These are the bills that have gone through the Appropriations Committee, either the subcommittee or the full committee. When you look at the number of earmark dollars that are associated with powerful Members of Congress, either those on the Appropriations Committee or leadership or the chairs of committees, just take, for example, the MilCon-VA bill, 78 percent of the earmarks are going to 13 percent of the Members. Other bills are similar: 76 percent in Agriculture; CJS, 57 percent going to the most powerful Members.

It's often said that we earmark here because we know our districts better than those bureaucrats. Well, apparently, 13 percent of the Members know their districts; the rest of us don't.

That's just one of the problems with the earmarking system we have in Congress. It's a spoils system. Those who are powerful get the spoils.

Mr. Speaker, just days ago the State of Arizona lost a kind and gentle sole when Mitch Menlove passed away at the tender age of 36.

Mitch leaves behind a record of honor and integrity among those he worked with in a successful career in public affairs. He leaves behind a rich heritage of service in his church and his community.

Most important by far, however, is the legacy Mitch built, a legacy that will continue for generations to come with his wife Elizabeth, his children Max, Morgan, and Makenna, and a fourth child, Mitchell Kent, Jr., who will be born any day now.

Just hours before Mitch passed from this life, he climbed Arizona's highest peak. He stands even higher today.

Those of us who are left momentarily behind will be forever grateful for the exemplary life he lived, the service he rendered, and for the wonderful family that will carry on his legacy.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a straightforward amendment and should be noncontroversial. H.R. 5114 establishes a new grant program that would provide grants to local government agencies responsible for flood plain management in communities that participate in the national flood insurance program. Funds from this grant program would be used for outreach to inform both renters and owners of the national flood insurance program. This amendment would specifically prohibit any earmarking of the funds made available under this new grant program.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's the taxpayers'--or, I don't think it is the taxpayers' responsibility to inform renters and owners of these flood plain requirements. Having said that, if we are going to provide funds here and say that it's a competitive grant program, then we shouldn't go in and earmark it later. Those funds ought to be available to those who compete for them, not directed by Members of Congress to favored constituents or groups.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment.

Some have asked, Why do this if there's no intention to earmark the program? Why do we need this language? Unfortunately, in the past, with programs that have been adopted like this, competitive grant programs, we have said and promised in Congress that we won't earmark those funds, and we've come and earmarked them. A good example is FEMA's Pre- Disaster Mitigation Grant Program that was put in place. It was not to be earmarked. It was a grant program like this one. Yet in 2007, nearly half of the funds for the program were earmarked. I just want to make sure that they aren't in this program as well.

So I thank the gentlelady for accepting the amendment. I urge its adoption.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, recent press reports indicate that the House leadership is considering a rules change which would diminish the scope and authority of the Office of Congressional Ethics, or OCE. This is an apparent response to the OCE's decision to forward information gathered during its investigation of the PMA Group to the Justice Department, bypassing the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in the process. The narrative seems to be that this is just another example of the OCE's succumbing to mission creep or of its growing beyond its intended purpose.

In the interest of full disclosure, I voted against the creation of the OCE in 2007. I felt at the time that the House should be able to establish appropriate standards and to police its behavior through the Standards Committee. I still believe that we should be able to do so, but this controversy over the OCE has effectively shown that, when it comes to removing the cloud that hangs over this body relating to earmarks and to campaign contributions, this body is unwilling, through the Standards Committee, to take the necessary action to uphold the dignity of the institution.

After an investigation lasting more than a year, during which some 200,000 pages of documentation were accumulated, the OCE concluded ``there is evidence that some of the commercial entities seeking earmarks from Members of Congress believe that a political donation to the Member has an impact on the Member's decision to author an earmark for that donor.''

This information was forwarded to the Standards Committee, which agreed with the conclusion drawn by the OCE. The Standards Committee summarized the OCE's findings as follows: ``There is a widespread perception among corporations and lobbyists that campaign contributions provided enhanced access to Members or a greater chance of obtaining earmarks.''

Then, quite inexplicably, the Standards Committee dropped the matter, stating that to address the problem is ``not within the jurisdiction of the committee.'' Let me state that again. The Standards Committee said that it lacks the authority to establish a standard that will address what they conclude is a widespread perception of a link between earmarks and campaign contributions. This defies reason.

At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the House adopted rules requiring Members of Congress to certify that they have no ``financial interest'' in an earmark's being sponsored. ``Financial interest'' has been defined by the Standards Committee to include a direct or a foreseeable effect on the pecuniary interest for the Member or his or her spouse. The relevant section of the House Ethics Manual then states, ``Campaign contributions do not necessarily constitute financial interest.''

How can the Standards Committee lack the authority to set standards or to interpret rules? This is particularly confusing when one considers that the Standards Committee can address the issue by simply amending the interpretation of ``financial interest'' it has already promulgated in the House Ethics Manual.

One need not read very far into the Standards Committee's summary of the OCE's PMA investigation before realizing that Members, through their campaign committees, derive significant benefit from the ``widespread perception'' of a link between earmarks and campaign contributions. To pretend that this benefit does not constitute ``financial interest'' is no longer a viable option. We are no longer acting in ignorance. The ``wink-wink-nod-nod'' game, which we have all known to exist with regard to earmarks and campaign contributions, is now well documented, and the Standards Committee's definition of ``financial interest'' needs to be updated to reflect these findings.

So where do we go from here?

We can shoot the messenger, as press reports indicate many Members are inclined to do, but the problem with this approach is that the message about the link between earmarks and campaign

contributions has already been delivered.

What we do with the OCE at this point is very much beside the point. It's little more than a sideshow. We need to concern ourselves with the dignity of the House. That is our collective responsibility. It does not fall outside of our jurisdiction.

As I have said many times before, Mr. Speaker, the PMA cloud that hangs over this body rains on Democrats and Republicans alike. We are in this swamp together, but we can't grab a shovel while we are covering our eyes and plugging our ears.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in support of the amendment.

We can learn from history but we really can't revise it as much as we want to try. We're hearing the same arguments now that we heard about Fannie and Freddie, that there's no trouble, they're solvent, everything's fine. We're hearing the same thing with FHA now, but I can tell you, when FHA insured simply, what was it one in fifty homes, now it's one in four, or guarantees the loan on that amount, we're going to face trouble here unless we make additional changes to the ones that are being proposed to this bill. This is a prudent amendment.

It would raise from 3.5 to 5 percent the minimum down payment. It gives more individuals more skin in the game for their home and fewer individuals will walk away. They will try to work it out and try to make their mortgages go on.

We cannot afford to ignore history, and if we reject this amendment, we are ignoring history.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor often on the rule and sometimes to thank the Rules Committee for allowing an effort to strike earmarks from legislation. This is the first time I've ever come to the floor on an authorization bill or an appropriation bill where I've been completely shut out of the process, not able to offer any amendments with regard to earmarks. And it's easy to see why right now.

In the past, I've always come to strike both Republican and Democratic earmarks from legislation. This time there are some 230 earmarks in the bill and only one was a bipartisan earmark request. The rest were Democratic earmark requests, no Republicans because Republicans have adopted an earmark moratorium.

So this looks like the start of a pattern. It was all well and good to challenge Republican and Democratic earmarks, but if there are only Democratic earmarks in a bill, then nobody is going to be allowed to challenge them.

Now, what kind of process is that?

Have we come to a point where we're simply going to shield Members and their earmarks from scrutiny?

We talk about disclosure till we're blue in the face and transparency, and it's all a lofty term. But then when it comes down to it, when there's only one party earmarking in a bill, when a Member comes up to challenge those earmarks, he's shut out. No, you aren't allowed to. You can only challenge Republican earmarks, and since there are none there, or Republican and Democratic earmarks, if there are no Republican earmarks, you're not going to be allowed to challenge any.

Now, I suppose that's what's going to happen with appropriation bills this year as well, and that's a shame. It's a doggone shame, because of all the rhetoric that's come, and some good measures that have been taken on both sides of the aisle with regard to transparency, this is a huge step backwards. We're going the wrong direction here.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all germane amendments be allowed to be offered, because the chairlady said that all germane amendments were approved.

Madam Chairman, I rise as the designee of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley).

I thank the Chair. I believe this amendment is noncontroversial in nature. It merely adds sense of Congress language to the bill expressing that, ``retaining graduate-level talent trained at American universities in STEM fields is critical to enhancing the competitiveness of American businesses.''

According to the National Science Foundation, foreign students receive about half of all doctorates in engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, physics, and economics that are awarded in the United States. Unfortunately, growing backlogs in processing applications hamper the flexibility of U.S. employers to hire foreign- born talent with advanced degrees from American universities. These hurdles affect even doctoral graduates in STEM fields trained at U.S. universities, who either return home or seek employment in a country with a more welcoming immigration system. The loss of Ph.D. talent, trained at U.S. institutions and due to immigration redtape, to our competitors makes little sense, and it harms our economy.

Researchers at Duke University and the University of California- Berkeley found that from 1995 to 2005, more than a quarter of engineering and technology companies started in the U.S. had at least one foreign-born founder, and in 2006, these companies employed 450,000 workers and produced $52 billion in sales. This amendment is supported by COMPETE America, American Council on International Personnel, and TechAmerica.

I urge its adoption. This is important. We need to ensure that our economy is competitive moving forward, and we need to ensure that we have graduates in these STEM fields who can be here and lead these research efforts.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman, the chairman of the committee, for agreeing to accept his amendment and for his support of this initiative, and for the ability of our economy to keep those who will help lead them into the future and help ensure that jobs stay here as to the extent possible. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is similar to amendments I have offered in the past on authorization bills. It simply states that none of the money authorized in this legislation for grant programs or for other purposes can be earmarked later by Members of Congress.

We are often told that we don't plan to earmark this money, but we have seen in the past that many of the grant programs or other moneys that are authorized are later earmarked. For example, the Emergency Operations Center in a FEMA bill, 60 percent of the funds for the grant program were later earmarked.

We can't have this, Madam Chair. If we're going to authorize a program, if we're going to say that moneys are available for specific purposes, we shouldn't come in later and simply take all that money from those accounts through earmarking.

These amendments have been accepted in the past by the majority, and I hope that this one will be as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for accepting the amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I move the previous question on the resolution itself.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, April 6, 2010, marks the date that our farm subsidies--these are programs that, on a good day, are out of step with reality--took an unprecedented leap into the absurd. On that day the administration hatched an agreement on Brazil trade litigation that includes the U.S. paying Brazil $143.7 million a year for ``technical assistance and capacity building.'' Because our subsidies violate WTO rules, we're now paying millions to subsidize Brazilian agriculture.

Let's think about that for a minute. Our subsidies for U.S. farmers are out of step with the WTO. So what do we do in response? We subsidize our trade partners elsewhere in the world. So your tax dollars are not only going to pay subsidies for U.S. agriculture, but now to pay subsidies for our trade partners in other countries.

We have got to stop this, Mr. Speaker. It's Congress' responsibility to reform our cotton program and our agriculture subsidies.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 255, commemorating the 40th anniversary of Earth Day and honoring the founder of Earth Day, former Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.

For the past 40 years, citizens all across the United States have come together once a year to celebrate the wonder of planet Earth on Earth Day. Every April 22 Americans from all parts of the country, from coastal regions to mountainous regions to forested regions and the many other incredibly diverse regions of this country, take time to admire and enjoy the beauty and splendor of our environment. Earth Day allows all people to realize the importance of ensuring that our children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy the beauty of the planet for generations to come.

Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin founded Earth Day because of his love for our planet and the environment. As Senator Nelson said in a speech on Earth Day, ``Earth Day is dramatic evidence of the broad new national concern that cuts across generations and ideologies. It may be symbolic of a new communication between young and old about values and priorities.''

A veteran of World War II and Governor of Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson served in the Senate from 1963 to 1981. During his career in both State and national politics, he promoted many environmental causes and worked tirelessly to preserve the planet for future generations. In 1995, he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his public service throughout his career. Despite his many accomplishments, Earth Day was his most important and lasting legacy.

Just on a personal note, one thing that he advocated, and I think we advocate with Earth Day, is to get outside in the environment and enjoy what's around us. Last year I did that to the extreme, I think. I was dropped off on a little island in the middle of the Pacific. And for a week I didn't see another person, I didn't see a plane, I didn't see an automobile, I didn't see a boat, I saw nothing. Just a lot of fish and hermit crabs and others.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman for that. I doubt I will need an agent or that they will come calling. Contrary to popular belief, this was not a metaphor for the fate of congressional Republicans, being isolated on an island either.

But it was a great opportunity, without any outside influences at all, to be there and to see nature at its finest.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I just want to urge my colleagues to support the resolution. It's a great cause. And certainly I think we all owe it to our constituents and to the country to recognize the stewardship that we have to ensure that we pass on the planet as good as we got it or better to future generations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

If the gentlelady has no additional speakers, I'm prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, it's important for us to take a moment to extend our gratitude to our loved ones who have endured the grief of losing loved ones, those brave soldiers in the battlefield who become wounded or sick. And I thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) for his comments. We're all grateful for the Silver Star Families of America, for their devotion, dedication to keeping us all aware of the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of the armed services.

I ask all Members to support this resolution supporting Silver Star Service Banner Day.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 855, expressing support for the designation of May 1st as `Silver Star Service Banner Day'.

Recognizing all of our service members throughout the year is our privilege and designating May 1, 2010 as Silver Star Service Banner Day is an additional way to honor the wounded and ill members of our Armed Forces.

The Silver Star Families of America, a non-profit organization, is dedicated to keeping the memories of these hero's sacrifices in the hearts and minds of all of us through the presence of a Silver Star displayed in a window or the Service Flag flying for all to see.

It is important for us to take a moment to extend our gratitude to their loved ones who have endured the grief of losing a loved one or the difficulty of caring for these brave soldiers as the Silver Star Families do.

Those who have been wounded or have died are members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Coast Guard. They deserve our continued gratitude for all that they have given on our behalf. To this end, the Silver Star Service Banner has come to represent their bravery.

We are grateful to the Silver Star Families of America for their devotion and dedication to keeping all of us aware of the sacrifices made by the wounded and ill members of the Armed Forces, therefore, I ask all members to join me in supporting May 1, 2010 as Silver Star Service Banner Day.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for introducing this resolution. And I urge my colleagues to support it.

We want to express our condolences to the families and the friends and loved ones of those who perished in the fire and wish a speedy recovery to the one who is still injured.

We want to make sure also that this fire is investigated and we, to the extent possible, can make sure that it doesn't happen again.

And so I want to encourage all my colleagues to support this important resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas, the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct

initiated an investigation into allegations related to

earmarks and campaign contributions in the Spring of 2009.

Whereas, on December 2, 2009, reports and findings in seven

separate matters involving the alleged connection between

earmarks and campaign contributions were forwarded by the

Office of Congressional Ethics to the Standards Committee.

Whereas, on February 26, 2010, the Standards Committee made

public its report on the matter wherein the Committee found,

though a widespread perception exists among corporations and

lobbyists that campaign contributions provide a greater

chance of obtaining earmarks, there was no evidence that

Members or their staff considered contributions when

requesting earmarks.

Whereas, the Committee indicated that, with respect to the

matters forwarded by the Office of Congressional Ethics,

neither the evidence cited in the OCE's findings nor the

evidence in the record before the Standards Committee

provided a substantial reason to believe that violations of

applicable standards of conduct occurred.

Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics is prohibited

from reviewing activities taking place prior to March of 2008

and lacks the authority to subpoena witnesses and documents.

Whereas, for example, the Office of Congressional Ethics

noted that in some instances documents were redacted or

specific information was not provided and that, in at least

one instance, they had reason to believe a witness withheld

information requested and did not identify what was being

withheld.

Whereas, the Office of Congressional Ethics also noted that

they were able to interview only six former employees of the

PMA Group, with many former employees refusing to consent to

interviews and the OCE unable to obtain evidence within PMA's

possession.

Whereas, Roll Call noted that ``the committee report was

five pages long and included no documentation of any evidence

collected or any interviews conducted by the committee,

beyond a statement that the investigation `included extensive

document reviews and interviews with numerous witnesses.' ''

(Roll Call, March 8, 2010)

Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee

included in their investigation any activities that occurred

prior to 2008.

Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee

interviewed any Members in the course of their investigation.

Whereas, it is unclear whether the Standards Committee, in

the course of their investigation, initiated their own

subpoenas or followed the Office of Congressional Ethics

recommendations to issue subpoenas. Therefore be it:

Resolved, That not later than seven days after the adoption

of this resolution, the Committee on Standards of Official

Conduct shall report to the House of Representatives, with

respect to the activities addressed in its report of February

26, 2010, (1) how many witnesses were interviewed, (2) how

many, if any, subpoenas were issued in the course of their

investigation, and (3) what documents were reviewed and their

availability for public review.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.