Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, just minutes ago I introduced a privileged resolution that would require the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to make public information gathered for its probe into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

In a report released earlier this month, the Standards Committee concluded that it could find no evidence of a quid pro quo regarding the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. The committee exercised its authority under its own rules to release information gathered by the Office of Congressional Ethics, but released nothing more than a summary of its own findings.

According to one media source, ``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.''

I think it is fair to ask what the Standards Committee did regarding this investigation. We know the Standards Committee reviewed documents gathered by the Office on Congressional Ethics. What were these documents? We were also told the Standards Committee interviewed numerous witnesses. Who were they?

We know that the OCE has no subpoena power. It cannot compel cooperation from whom it investigates. Let me give an example of where it might have been useful to have some followup information from the Standards Committee.

Page 17 of the report notes that the OCE had reason to believe that a witness withheld information. It also notes that many remaining former PMA employees refused to consent to interviews. In addition, it noted that the OCE was unable to obtain any evidence within PMA's possession. I think it is reasonable to ask whether the Standards Committee issued subpoenas or otherwise sought cooperation from these reluctant witnesses. It appears they did not.

Perhaps what is most troubling about this investigation is that the Standards Committee concludes that while they could find no evidence of a quid pro quo between campaign contributions and earmarks, there is a widespread perception among campaign contributors and earmark recipients that such a quid pro quo exists.

It should be noted that the ``perception'' or ``appearance'' has been sufficient grounds for admonishment of a Member of Congress by the Standards Committee as recently as 2004. Yet despite finding that there is a widespread appearance of impropriety here, the Standards Committee provides no guidance to Members of Congress as to how they might avoid such an appearance. The existence of such a perception, I might add, inures to the benefit of Members of Congress and their campaign committees.

I have long advocated for a change to the Standard Committee's current guidance regarding earmarks and campaign contributions and have introduced legislation to this effect. House rules already require Members who earmark funds to certify that they and their families have no financial interest in the organization receiving earmark dollars, yet the Standards Committee states that campaign contributions do not constitute financial interests. Classifying campaign contributions as financial interests would go a long way toward dispelling the widespread perception of a quid pro quo and would do much to lift the ethical cloud hanging over this body.

As an aside, while we are updating guidance from the Standards Committee, we should certainly update the recent guidance implying that Members of Congress who, for example, earmark money for a freeway off- ramp next to property they own, thereby inflating the value of this property, are not in violation of House rules as long as they are not the ``sole beneficiaries'' of such a rise in value. Such a standard does not pass the test of smell or laughter.

When behavior that is condoned by this body lends itself to a widespread perception of impropriety, we have an obligation not only to change the behavior, but to change the rules that police and govern such behavior.

Mr. Speaker, we owe this wonderful institution far more than we are giving it. The widespread perception of the dependent relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions carries no partisan advantage. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike, and we will all benefit when this cloud is lifted.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Skip Nelson, who passed away earlier this week, leaving us all far too early. Arizona was blessed that Skip called the State home for most of his life. He was known by many and respected by all. Countless individuals, groups, and organizations have benefited from his good work, his generosity, and his wise counsel.

I had the distinct privilege of knowing Skip for more than a decade. From my vantage point, for all the notable accomplishments and achievements in his life, it was within the walls of his own home that Skip's most important and lasting work was accomplished. Along with Judy, his beloved wife of more than 30 years, Skip raised three upright and honorable children, Mike, Ryan, and Erin, who will surely carry on his legacy. In fact, Mike and Ryan have already done much good here on Capitol Hill. Every State and community deserves to have a man of the caliber of Skip Nelson. We count ourselves fortunate in Arizona to have had him as long as we did.

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

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

This amendment is noncontroversial in nature. Section 7 of the bill would create a new discretionary grant program to assist State education agencies in meeting the regulations established in the bill, collecting and analyzing data, and implementing the schoolwide positive behavior support approach. This grant program is to be funded out of the authorization provided in the bill for such sums as necessary.

While State agencies will have to apply for these grants, it is unclear if the grants will be awarded on a competitive basis or a merit-based approach.

We have seen in the past, unfortunately, when these grant programs have been established, even if it is stipulated that they should be competitive or merit based, oftentimes later Members of Congress will come in and earmark funds directly, and some of these accounts we have for competitive grant programs, merit-based grant programs are completely earmarked just a few years later, so organizations and individuals, nonprofit agencies or State agencies can't even compete for them because all of that money has been earmarked.

We need to look no further than FEMA's National Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program. It was a competitive grant program designed to ``save lives and reduce property damage by providing for hazard mitigation planning, acquisition, and relocation of structures out of the floodplain.'' Again, this was going to be a competitive grant program. The fiscal 2010 Homeland Security appropriation bill appropriated $100 million for this program. Almost $25 million of that was earmarked for projects in Members' home districts, leaving fewer funds available for localities that wished to legitimately apply for the funding.

A grant program to establish the Emergency Operation Center established by Congress in the fiscal 2008 Homeland appropriation spending bill,

60 percent of the funds in that grant program were earmarked.

Again, these are grant programs that are typically set up to be competitively bid on for the agencies to assess on a merit-based basis, and yet they are earmarked.

So this amendment would simply say none of the funds available or authorized by this legislation would be available to be earmarked.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for supporting the amendment. I think it is important that we do this on this legislation and all programs like this that are authorized by the Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order.

This amendment, I would hope, would not be controversial. It has nothing to do with earmarks either, I'll let everybody know. But it would simply ensure that the equal protection clause, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, applies to the Native Hawaiian governing authority established by this legislation.

I just want to say how much I admire the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). I have worked with him for a number of years on a number of issues and I know that he brings to this debate a lot of hard work and a lot of care. I just want to commend him for that and for all that he does.

I think that this amendment simply clarifies, I would hope, that this does not violate any portion of the Constitution. Now, it has been said here many times by the proponents of the legislation that it does not, but there are still a lot of questions out there. As has been noted, the Governor of Hawaii and the Attorney General do not support this substitute amendment to the bill, and they have repeatedly expressed concerns fearing that it would apply different rules to those under their jurisdiction. I think that if there is any question, that we ought to ensure, at least at a minimum, that we are complying with the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment states, ``All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.''

I should note that on August 28, 2009, the United States Commission on Civil Rights voiced its opposition in a letter to Members of the Congress stating, The Commission recommends against passage of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, or any other legislation that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.

And you can have arguments on either side. Proponents will say that this complies with the Constitution. Some question that it may not. And no less authority than the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has those worries.

So what we are saying here is, why not adopt language that says that it simply complies, or no language in this legislation shall be contrary to the 14th Amendment?

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman. I guess the gentleman is arguing that it is simply redundant.

I would suggest that, if the Governor of the State of Hawaii and the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii both have concerns about it and if the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights recommends against its passage for these very concerns, there is at least some question about whether or not it complies with the 14th Amendment.

So why not adopt this amendment? If we are saying straight out that this complies with the 14th Amendment, why not simply adopt this amendment? There is definitely a question out there. If it were unanimous and if everyone were saying, Let's pass this legislation as it is, as there is no constitutional question, that would be one thing, but we certainly don't have that today.

Let me just say that something was sent around to Members that was urging opposition to the Flake amendment, saying, ``H.R. 2314 already applies ICRA,'' or the Indian Civil Rights Act, ``to the entity, and requires the Secretary of the Interior to certify that the Native Hawaiian governing entity is in compliance with Federal law and that its governing documents provide for the protection of the civil rights of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing authority or entity.''

I would argue that we are talking apples and oranges here. What ICRA stipulates is that civil rights are applied equally to those within the governing authority, and so it simply stipulates that those within the Native Hawaiian governing act will comply with Federal law. In other words, there will be no discrimination among them. It doesn't address the core question here that we are seeking to address. It doesn't address whether or not there is a constitutional question about whether or not individuals outside of the governing entity here might be discriminated against.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3 under the rule.

Madam Chair, this amendment, I hope, is noncontroversial in nature. Section 105 of the bill would authorize appropriations for several National Science Foundation grant programs dealing with cybersecurity. For example, the bill authorizes nearly $400 million through 2014 for computer and network security research grants. In addition, the bill would authorize such sums as necessary to make grants related to computer and network security research centers and capacity building, Scientific and Advanced Technology Act grants, and traineeships and research fellowships. This amendment would simply prohibit any earmarking of the funds made available for these programs under this act.

It appears that the grants are already intended to be awarded on a ``merit-reviewed competitive basis.'' But I think we still need this amendment because we've seen in the past, time and time and time and time again, that programs that were set up to be competitive accounts that are supposed to be competitive or merit reviewed are simply earmarked later. So if we have this language in it, it will make it less likely that these accounts are subject to earmarking. It's unfortunate that we have to take this step, I realize, but I think we should.

I agree with the President when he said last week that we need to ``continue down the path to earmark reform'' and that ``restoring the public trust demands more.'' This is doing more. I think that we ought to go much further than this, but this is a good start.

I wish to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking minority member for his comments.

I thank the gentleman. Let me just say, I mentioned that we have had examples in the past. Let me just give one where programs that were supposed to be competitively awarded were, in fact, earmarked. Last year we established a grant program called the Emergency Operation Centers. It was established by Congress in FY 2008, in the Homeland Security bill. Last year in the spending bill, it showed that 60 percent of the funds in this grant program were earmarked. We simply can't allow that to happen here. This is a $400 million authorization for this grant program, and we can't have it earmarked.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Just to conclude, I appreciate the majority's willingness to accept the amendment. Again, I appreciate the fact that there are no earmarks in this authorization. What we're seeking to do here is that when money is appropriated for these programs that are authorized here, that none of that money can be earmarked like we've seen in many, many, many bills before.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 976 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the legislation, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section 426(1).

Madam Speaker, approximately 68 years ago, in January of 1941, Sam Rayburn was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives. Just prior to his swearing in, he rose on the House floor and said the following:

``You have elevated me to a position, I must confess, that has been one of the ambitions of my lifetime. The House of Representatives has been my life and my love for this more than a quarter of a century. I love its traditions; I love its precedents; I love its dignity; I glory in the power of the House of Representatives. It is my highest hope and my unswerving aim to preserve, protect, and defend the rights, prerogatives, and the power of the House of Representatives.''

What a beautiful statement. You can't help but hear and feel the words of love that Speaker Rayburn felt for this House. As Speaker, he considered himself a custodian of its traditions, its precedents and, as he put it, its dignity.

You might ask why I tell this story, why I raise this point. It is because we are about to consider a bill that endorses and condones a practice that has placed a dark and ominous cloud over this institution. This practice, for lack of a better term, can be called circular fund-raising. It involves the awarding of earmarks, which are essentially no-bid contracts, in close proximity to the receipt of campaign contributions from the earmark recipients.

This legislation contains more than 500 earmarks where a private, for-profit company is the intended recipient. Let me repeat that. This legislation we are about to consider contains more than 500 earmarks, or no-bid contracts, directed to private companies. In many cases, the Members of the Congress securing these no-bid contracts have either received, or will soon receive after this legislation is enacted into law, large campaign contributions from the executives of these companies and/or the lobbyists that represent them.

By now my colleagues are well aware of the PMA scandal which was largely centered on the practice of circular fund-raising. Since news broke in February 2008 of the FBI's raid of the PMA offices, press reports and editorials from coast to coast have raised questions about the action of that firm and the integrity of this body, sowing public distrust and tarnishing the dignity of the House. Just listen to what is being said off the Hill and beyond the beltway.

ABC's news site, The Blotter, noted that PMA's ``operations--millions out to lawmakers, hundreds of millions back in earmarks for clients-- have made it, for many observers, the poster child for tacit `pay-to- play' politics in Washington.''

An editorial in The New York Times entitled, ``Political Animal 101'' referred to ``the relationship between campaign donors and the customized appropriations they are fed by grateful lawmakers'' as ``the ultimate in symbiotic survival'' and ``cynical influence trading.''

An article in The Kansas City Star noted that ``the earmark game gets a bit less baffling'' when taxpayers consider ``the campaign donors that grease political palms.''

The Columbus Dispatch summed it up when they noted, ``Congress has an abysmal public approval rating of 26 percent as of early November, and the smell of quid pro quo certainly doesn't help.''

The embarrassing coverage isn't just limited to domestic press. The Irish Times noted that ``U.S. Congressmen tread a fine line between legitimate political fund-raising and influence-peddling, between friendship with lobbyists and outright corruption.'' They go on, ``Now a leaked confidential report, prepared by the committee (on Ethics) in July and detailed in yesterday's Washington Post, has provided a rare glimpse into the cesspool of Capitol Hill politics.''

Madam Speaker, I have here that article referred to from The Washington Post dated October 30 of this year. It notes that seven Members who sit on the Appropriations Committee, the Subcommittee on Defense, are ``under scrutiny by ethics investigators.'' The article notes that ``Together, the seven legislators have personally steered more than $200 million in earmarks to clients of the PMA Group in the past 2 years, and received more than $6.2 million in campaign contributions from PMA and its clients in the past decade.''

According to The Wall Street Journal, Members who sit on the Defense Subcommittee have this year alone ``received a total of $141,000 in campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the lawmakers.''

So here we are today, Madam Speaker, with a backdrop of investigations into the practice of circular fund-raising by the Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee, yet we are poised to pass a Defense appropriations bill that contains more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies.

In mid-January of 2010, we will see a quarterly report from the Office of Congressional Ethics that will shed light into their investigations. Thereafter, it is likely that our own Ethics Committee will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the PMA scandal.

If the future is anything like the past, additional scandals will spring from the earmarks that we approve

today. We are surely, as the poet said, ``traipsing down a flower- strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason.''

I should note that circular fund-raising is not a partisan issue; both parties engage in it. The cloud that hangs over this body rains on Republicans and Democrats alike. But it is fair to ask, what about the dignity of this body? Are we appropriately concerned that the words ``pay-to-play,'' ``quid pro quo,'' ``swamp'' and ``cesspool'' are increasingly routine in articles describing the appropriations process? Should we have no standard higher than whether the abuse of the process rises to the level of an indictable offense?

One thing is clear: The practice of circular fund-raising will someday end. The question is, who will end it? Will it take us, in our own initiative, to clean our own House, or will we wait for the Justice Department to launch more investigations and take further action?

My own hope is that those who find themselves in leadership positions today will summon the dormant custodial spirit of those who have protected and defended this wonderful institution long before we arrived in this Chamber. We owe it to them to correct the process that led to this flawed piece of legislation before us.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

I am accused of using a procedural measure to bring up earmarks again. Let me tell you why I'm doing that. I'm doing that because this year, for the first time in the history of this institution, every appropriations bill that came to the floor-- including this one, including the Defense appropriations bill--came under a structured or closed rule with only certain amendments being offered. That's the first time in the history of this institution where every appropriations bill has come to the floor in that manner.

And so individuals like myself and others were only allowed to offer the amendments that the other side wanted us to offer, the ones that they said we could offer rather than the ones that we ourselves would choose. I was fortunate in that I got 10 of the 550-some amendments I offered on this bill. I offered that many because that's how many no- bid contracts for private companies are contained in the bill, and I thought that they deserved some scrutiny.

I wish that the Appropriations Committee was vetting these earmarks; given this, it's clear that they're not. This is one of hundreds of articles out there. There is a cloud hanging over this institution because of prior Defense bills, and this is going to end up the same way. We are guaranteeing that there will be scandal that springs from earmarks approved in this bill because they haven't been appropriately vetted, and they haven't been because we weren't allowed an open rule for people to bring to the floor amendments that they wanted to offer.

I mentioned that I was fortunate in that I got 10 of them. Some of my colleagues offered multiple amendments on multiple appropriations bills throughout the year and weren't given the opportunity to offer any of them, not one. Here are Members across the country wanting to represent their constituents, and through the entire appropriations process, 12 bills this year, weren't given the opportunity to offer one amendment because we have the equivalent of martial law on appropriations bills.

And why? Because we were told we had to get it done so we wouldn't do any omnibus bills at the end of the year. Well, here we are, we just approved a massive omnibus bill last week, and we're here today because the Defense bill was held just so that we could tag on additional items that people who wouldn't want to vote for them anyway would have to because it's a Defense bill. That's just no way to conduct business. This institution deserves better than this. It deserves better than to have a bill that has more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies of which articles have been written and will be written, making a cloud hang over this body.

As I mentioned, this isn't a partisan issue. This isn't where one party is in the right and one party is in the wrong. We are both doing this, and we shouldn't. And it will come back to haunt us as surely as other practices have in the past.

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

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I had hoped that the gentleman would rise and explain what he just explained.

Now, I will gladly yield to him to explain why this would only apply to earmarks by House Members alone and why the competition requirements don't apply to earmarks that are jointly requested by a House and Senate Member. If we're hanging our hat on language that requires that these earmarks be subject to competition, then surely we would extend it to anything that had our name on it, but we're not.

My understanding is that the language only applies to those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member, and that if you have a Senate Member on your earmark request, then it is not subject to competition. The language just explained does not apply to it. So you can't have it both ways.

Now, I will argue that it doesn't matter anyway, because right now if you talk to the Department of Defense, and I have, we've held meetings in my office with the procurement officials, and we've asked them, How does this work when these earmarks come over? Are they subject to competition? They said, Yes, we follow the rules. Yet when you ask them to do a cursory examination or a full-fledged examination of those earmarks that were requested in prior years, you will find an uncanny alignment, as you might expect, between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmarks in the end.

So you can say until you're blue in the face we're going to subject these to full and open competition. The Department of Defense already says that. And these articles that I already talked about, these scandals that are currently underway are under a policy where the Department of Defense already says we subject these to full and open competition. But let me tell you, if an earmark comes over from a Member of Congress, particularly from those on the Appropriations Committee--and I should explain that the majority of these earmarks, a disproportionate number, are from the powerful Members on the Appropriations Committee--believe me, those procurement officials at the Department of Defense take that into account. They know who butters their bread, and they know that they'd better award this contract to the intended recipient or they might not get funded the next year. If that's not the case, why have we seen so much an uncanny alignment between the intended recipient and those who actually got the earmark in the first place?

So, first, again let me say if we're hanging our hat on the language that says these are subject to competition, then why wouldn't we apply it to every earmark that is contained in this bill? It doesn't apply to Senate earmarks, nor does it apply to earmarks requested by both Senate and House Members. So are we saying, well, we're going to subject some to competition and that means something, but these others, yes, it's okay if there are no-bid contracts? That simply doesn't work.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence here.

This is important, and I would ask the gentleman and would yield to him to respond, is it your understanding, then, that this language, this new competition language, applies to Senate earmarks as well as earmarks requested by both House and Senate Members?

I thank the gentleman. Let me simply say if that is the case, that is in conflict with the agreement that we understand to be in effect.

The agreement we understand to be in effect and what I was told is that only those earmarks that are requested solely by a House Member has the language that applies to competition. If it is an earmark requested by both a House and a Senate Member, then it does not apply this year, and supposedly it will next year, although obviously there are no guarantees. We can't bind a future session. And that if it is a Senate earmark, they didn't agree to this at all. That's what we understand. If there is some difference there, then please let's have the chairman of the Appropriations Committee explain it.

But, again, the question here is if that language is so important, then why wouldn't we apply it across the board?

And doesn't it strike everybody a little bit funny that you have an earmark that, when a Member requests it from the Appropriations Committee, they say this earmark of this amount, $500,000, $2 million, $2.5 million, whatever, is to go to this company at this address? It's that specific. It goes to that company at that address.

Now, the Appropriations Committee will say we're just providing a look-see, and so the Department of Defense can say, well, we didn't know that that company existed but now we do, and we're doing nothing more than simply giving them a look-see and giving them a chance to see which companies those are. I think that doesn't quite pass the laugh test.

Yes, I will.

I thank the gentleman for explaining my motives.

But in truth what I would like to see is no more earmarks in the defense bill because when you have an earmark, you don't have full and open competition. What I'm talking about is I would not like to see no- bid contracts for private companies in the defense bill. When you have that, I don't know how in the world you can say we have full and open competition.

Like I say, I don't believe that that language means much at all, but to the extent that you believe it does mean something, then at least you should apply it across the board, not just to earmarks sought by Members of the House solely but those earmarks that are requested by Senate Members as well. How can we say with a straight face that, hey, we're doing things right because we're applying that competition language to us, but all you have to do is to get a Senate Member to request it along with you and then you don't have to subject it to full and open competition. It simply doesn't make sense, Madam Speaker.

I thank the gentlewoman for her indulgence and I appreciate this discussion.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Indiana has mentioned, what do the opponents of this resolution have in mind. If not these sanctions, then what, what do we do? I think you are hard pressed to find anyone who will rationally say that this measure will have any real effect. This is a statement resolution more than anything.

And to the extent that it does bite, right now we don't export any refined petroleum products to Iran, but some of our allies do, those allies that we need for real sanctions that may or will bite. If we hope to get them on board, the last thing we want to do is get out in front and take measures where there will be punitive action on our allies that we need for sanctions that actually might have an impact.

So the notion that we have to do this or nothing is simply false. We need to address this situation there, but we need to do it in a way where we don't alienate the people of Iran who, when you're on the streets of Iran, people are not virulently anti-American, gratefully. We need to keep it that way. We shouldn't have sanctions that target the people, hoping that they will somehow revolt and then get mad at their leadership rather than the U.S.

I think that when you look at the history of sanctions, you're hard pressed to find examples where that kind of action works, where you try to entice some kind of rebellion among the people that you want to help and that somehow they will blame their government rather than those who are imposing the sanctions.

Again, multilateral sanctions can work. Multilateral action can work, and it needs to work. But in order to do that, you need to give the administration the flexibility, through a combination of diplomacy and other measures, to work with our allies, to bring measures that will work.

I am glad the gentleman has stood up to oppose this. I want people to know that we aren't all in agreement here, that there are other measures that can be taken.

Mr. Speaker, I will raise a point of order against H. Res. 961 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution carries a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the conference report, which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, I raise this point of order not so much out of a concern for unfunded mandates, but again, it's about the only opportunity we have to stand up and talk about the process by which this conference report is being brought to the floor.

We all remember that earlier this year we had something unprecedented happen. We have never in the history of the Republic ever had every appropriation bill come to the floor under a closed rule where Members from both sides of the aisle were denied the ability to offer amendments.

Now, until a decade or two ago, appropriation bills typically came to the floor without even going through the Rules Committee at all. It would simply come under an open rule, and amendments would be disposed of on the floor and there would be open debate.

A couple of decades ago, we started to go to the Rules Committee, but only to set overall parameters. It was still an open rule, and any Member could offer any amendment to strike funding or move funding around within the bill as long as it was germane. But this year we were told by the majority that we had to rush this legislation through, these appropriation bills.

Remember, the main reason Congress is here is because of the power of the purse. It's article 1: to dispose of funding legislation, to fund the agencies of the Federal Government. So that is the important reason we're here.

But we were told we had to rush that through and had to do it under what amounts to a form of legislative martial law where every appropriation bill this year, every one, came to the floor under a closed rule. Members were denied the ability to offer the amendments they wanted to offer. They could only offer the amendments that the Rules Committee saw fit for them to offer.

Over 1,000 amendments were offered. Just 12 percent of those amendments were actually allowed onto the House floor. Now, I was fortunate to have a number of those amendments allowed. Some of my colleagues came to the floor or came to the Rules Committee over and over again with multiple amendment requests on every bill, and in the entire year, not allowed one, not one amendment. We had several members not allowed one amendment the entire year because we had to rush these bills through for some unknown reason. We were told that we had to do this because we wanted to avoid an omnibus.

Well, here we are with an omnibus. This is a bill that spends north of a

trillion dollars, one bill brought to the floor under one rule. And in it, let me tell you what's in it.

Let me just tell you what is in it. In it is more than 5,000 earmarks.

I would.

I thank the gentleman and reserve the balance of my time.

Here again, I'm claiming my time on the unfunded mandates point of order because it's about the only opportunity we've had. And all throughout this appropriations season, I did something similar because it was the only opportunity I got. I was offered so few opportunities to offer amendments to earmarks during this appropriations season.

But let me just give you some of the examples of earmarks that are in this bill, just a couple of examples of the more than 5,000 earmarks that are stuffed into this legislation; again, earmarks that, for the most part, we were unable to challenge on the House floor because we weren't afforded the opportunity.

We made a law in the past couple of years, and I'm glad we have, about transparency, to make sure that Members' names are next to the earmarks they request. But as important as transparency is, accountability must also be present. And without the ability of Members to challenge those earmarks, then transparency doesn't mean a whole lot. And we haven't had the ability to have accountability here.

In this legislation, $125,000 goes for the defense procurement assistance program in southwestern Pennsylvania. Now, those who follow the appropriations process around here, particularly with Defense Appropriations, realize that southwestern Pennsylvania needs help with defense procurement like Arizona needs more cactus. This is a region that gets billions and billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to private companies, and yet we are appropriating here an earmark, a specifically designated earmark, for defense procurement assistance. Now, how ridiculous is that? Yet, it's in this legislation, and it was in the prior legislation that we dealt with under, as I said, the legislative equivalent of martial law earlier this year.

There's $500,000 for the Botanical Research Institute of Texas to enhance its collections; $292,000 to eliminate slum and blight in Scranton, Pennsylvania; $700,000 for an arts pavilion in Mississippi; $300,000 for Carnegie Hall music and education programs in New York.

Again, these may well be worthy programs. I'm not sure the Federal Government ought to be funding them. But, in any case, should any Member have the right to designate that portion of funding for his or her district without the ability of other Members to challenge it on the House floor? That is the question we have here.

We went through a process the entire year where we were told we can't have open debate, we can't allow Members to challenge these earmarks on the House floor because we have to rush these bills through to avoid an omnibus. Here we are in December with an omnibus. We all knew we would be here.

During the years 2006 to 2008 when the majority party was in the majority of Congress but the Republicans had the White House, we were told, ``Well, we could get these bills through in regular order were it not for the White House.'' Now, as the ranking member on the Rules Committee stated, the majority party is in control of the White House, has a huge majority here in the House and a 60-vote majority in the Senate, and still we are here with an omnibus. We knew we would be here. So you can only conclude that we rushed through this process during the entire year just to shield Members from uncomfortable votes to be forced to defend $250,000 for the Brooklyn Children's Museum or $600,000 for streetscape beautification in California and $250,000 for a farmer's market in Kentucky. If it weren't for that, why in the world did we have to shield Members from these uncomfortable votes?

So, Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted something different to come with this new majority in 2006. I wanted a transparent process with earmarks, wanted an accountable process with earmarks. But this year, I have to say, with the closed rules that have come on appropriations bills, we haven't had a more opaque year in a long, long time, and it doesn't speak well for this House. It doesn't speak well for our leadership to allow this kind of thing to happen, and particularly at a time when we have story after story after story in the newspapers about, particularly, problems with defense procurement, when you have no-bid contracts to private companies that are in legislation that we aren't allowed to challenge.

I realize the Defense bill is not part of this legislation. That will come next week. But it will come again with one rule, no ability to amend and no ability to challenge. When that Defense bill came to the floor earlier this year, there were more than 1,000 earmarks, more than 500 of which represented no-bid contracts to private companies. I offered more than 500 amendments to challenge some of those, and I was allowed just a tiny fraction of those. I think I was allowed 8 percent of the amendments that were offered, and so we are only allowed to challenge just a fraction of those no-bid contracts to private companies. And that, Mr. Speaker, is simply wrong.

We cannot continue to do that in this House. We need to be above reproach here. And we can't have a process when you have no-bid contracts to private companies without the ability of Members of Congress to come to this floor and challenge those earmarks. When you have a process that shields those projects and those Members from any vetting or criticism or debate or anything else, we shouldn't be doing that, yet we are still doing it.

With that, I urge to overturn this rule.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have to say, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said a while ago that they had to have what amounts to a legislative form of martial law during the consideration of these appropriation bills because many amendments were being brought forward. He said many were not serious amendments.

I can only assume that he was referring to some of mine, because I had a lot of them. But let me tell you, we had more than 500 no-bid contracts going to private companies in the Defense bill

alone, and I had many amendments to examine those because, heaven knows, they weren't being examined in the Appropriations Committee sufficiently.

We have had story after story and a cloud hanging over this body, investigations going on; the Ethics Committee has seen fit to investigate the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. Yet we say that many of these amendments are not serious amendments.

Who has to decide that? Why don't we let the body here decide and allow those to come to the floor.

Also, the gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned that we have to have this level of funding because of years and years of neglect. I would submit that we would do well to have a little more neglect on the taxpayers' behalf if what we are funding in this bill, and we are, is nearly $200,000 to renovate a building in Massachusetts to attract private capital investment; $700,000 for an arts pavilion in Mississippi. I think the taxpayers would be happy for a little more neglect by the Federal Government in this area.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wish the gentleman from Massachusetts were here to hear this discussion. Earlier in the year we had a discussion about moral hazard. I think all of us recognize that moral hazard played a role in the mess that we got in last year and have been in for a couple of years. The implied guarantees that we had at Freddie and Fannie played a role, a rather large role, in the problems that we later had.

I had mentioned to the gentleman from Massachusetts that some legislation we were passing earlier this year would further foster that principle of moral hazard. He said to me that, yes, that would be a problem if what we were doing were permanent, but it wasn't. It was simply temporary.

But here what we are doing is very permanent. We are establishing a permanent, in a sense, a permanent bailout fund. We are told only to believe that we are establishing a bailout fund that will never bail out any companies but, rather, will be used to shut companies down, or something like that, to establish a fund.

Fifty billion seed money from the Treasury, 50 billion in taxes from other companies to establish a fund to shut companies down? I don't think so. I think what we are establishing here, it's rather clear, is a bailout fund, a permanent bailout fund.

If you want to talk about moral hazard, this is it. This is moral hazard institutionalized that will lead to the types of problems that we have seen. It's not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. This is a principle, an economic principle that simply we cannot ignore.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to the legislation. This bill is one of many we're considering under suspension of the rules that were part of broader pieces of legislation we passed just a few weeks ago.

Members may recall that I offered an amendment to clarify that the grant program established under this program remain free of earmarks. That amendment was hardly controversial. It's passed a number of times, a similar amendment on similar bills. In fact, I think it's been by voice vote six times in the 111th Congress, twice by recorded vote, once in the 110th and again just a few weeks ago. This amendment on this bill earlier passed by a margin of 370-55, yet that language does not appear in the legislation that we're considering today.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

I hope I'm mistaken. I hope that it is.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

On to the broader piece of legislation, this Early Stage Investment program would allow the SBA to provide matching grants to private investment firms when they will use the money to invest in small business. I have to wonder, have to question----

Yes, I yield.

I thank the gentlewoman and I apologize.

Yes, that is correct.

That is my language. I'm pleased to see it is part of the legislation. However, as to the broader bill, I still remain opposed, but I thank the gentlewoman, and I hope that that language remains in all the legislation. Sometimes we have a habit of putting it in, then it goes to conference and the language is removed and it comes back. So I'm glad to be surprised and I'm very happy to be wrong in this case.

As to the broader bill, I think that when we are running a deficit of $1.4 trillion this year and have a debt of somewhere around $11 trillion, it behooves us to look at programs like this and wonder why we are taking taxpayer money. I know the sponsor of the legislation says that it will be invested wisely.

We are basically, as I understand it, using taxpayer money to give to or combine with venture capital money to invest in small business. By definition, if we are moving in with Federal taxpayer money, it's because venture capitalists and others don't see a profit being generated in the future or don't see the need or don't agree that this business model is sound. Yet we are taking taxpayer money and saying we're going to invest it because we know better than the venture capitalists, that somehow Congress, in all of our wisdom, in all of our small business wisdom and business acumen, we know better than venture capitalists which businesses are going to succeed and which ones are not. I think that that thinking is folly.

We in Congress don't have a stellar record when it comes to investing. You could name a number of things starting decades and decades ago where we haven't exactly picked the best winners and losers in the economy. But in this case with the kind of deficit we're running, with the kind of debt that we have, with the unfunded obligations totaling more than $50 trillion out there, to come with new authorization for new money, to invest where venture capitalists dare not tread, with taxpayer money, I think it should frighten us all. And to the extent that this legislation does that, we should reject it.

I should mention, as well, that this is talked about with early investment, but under the legislation only 50 percent of the funding is required to be invested early. Now, I think it would be folly to invest early, late, or anytime with Federal taxpayer money in private business in this fashion, but I think it's a bit of a misnomer even to call it ``early investment'' when only half of the money is required to be invested early in this case.

I hope that we reconsider this. Between now and the end of the year, we're going to be passing a lot of authorization bills like this, and a lot of people will say, well, it's not appropriation. It's not real money. We're just authorizing it. We're just stating goals and ideals. But then come next year or later when we haven't funded this, people will say, hey, we're cutting back or we're cutting funding that has been authorized. The Congress authorized it by a big margin, and this will probably pass by a big margin, and yet when we don't fund it, people will come back and say we haven't funded what we've authorized.

So it is important to make a statement here that it's not the right time, now or anytime, frankly, to use taxpayer money to invest in small business in this fashion, to go where venture capitalists dare not tread, where they will not invest their own money, but we're going to put Federal taxpayer money in this venture.

So with that, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding, and I thank the gentlewoman again. And I appreciate the diligence that you've worked with to keep the language in the legislation. That hasn't always happened, and I appreciate that it is here.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 3.

I thank the Chair.

This amendment would simply prohibit the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program and the SAFER grant

program from ever being used as vehicles for earmarking. As my colleagues are likely aware, I have offered a similar amendment several times this year. It's been adopted this year six times by voice vote and again by a roll call vote at least once.

As before, H.R. 3791 stipulates that the grant programs it authorizes are to be run on a competitive basis or on some basis based on need. While we have language prohibiting earmarking in there somewhat, this may seem redundant, but we all know that just because grant programs are labeled competitive doesn't mean that they won't be vehicles for earmarking.

In fact, we've had in some other programs, like FEMA's Pre-Disaster Mitigation program, that's a competitive grant program designed to save lives and reduce property damage by providing funds for hazard mitigation planning, acquisitions, and relocation of structures out of the flood plain; unfortunately, that program, although it's supposed to be competitive, has been completely earmarked, like 100 percent of the funds have been earmarked. We want to prevent that from happening here.

If we're going to establish a grant program and call it a competitive program, we need to ensure that it is, indeed, competitive. That's what this amendment seeks to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

I thank the chairman of the subcommittee and also the ranking minority member for supporting the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. When there is 10 percent unemployment, you stop digging.

Mr. Speaker, there is so much wrong with this bill it is impossible to cover in 90 seconds, so let me focus on one aspect.

Yesterday we learned that unemployment has reached 10 percent in this country. Can you imagine being a small businessman and deciding whether or not you are going to hire new employees when you face the prospect of an 8 percent tax if you are not providing the kind of health care coverage that this bill envisions. An 8 percent tax. And depending on the kind of business you have, if you file as a Sub S corporation, for example, you could face an additional 5.4 percent surtax on top of that. Are you going to hire more people? Not a chance. Unemployment will get worse.

We are in a deep economic hole, Mr. Speaker, and the first rule should be, stop digging. Yet here we have doubled down, and we are trading in our shovel for a backhoe, and we are saying we are going to dig faster and deeper. To what effect? What are we saying to people out there? That jobs aren't important? That we don't care because we just have to pass this legislation?

We ought to have more responsibility than that.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I have offered different iterations of this noncontroversial amendment many times during this Congress and the last. This particular amendment was offered last June to the TSA Authorization Act when it was adopted by voice vote.

H.R. 2868 establishes a new Worker Training Grants program that seeks to provide grants to nonprofit organizations with demonstrated experience in implementing and operating successful worker or first responder health and safety training programs. This amendment would simply prohibit the Worker Training Grants program from being earmarked by Members for pet projects or favored entities back home. This amendment also establishes that it is the presumption of Congress that these grants would be awarded competitively based on merit.

I am often asked why I offer this. These are set up to be programs that are competitively awarded, but sometimes it's explicitly stated, sometimes it's not. In either case, sometimes when it is explicitly stated--and when it's not--these grant programs are sometimes just earmarked, all of them. All of the money in some of these accounts, if you take, for example, some of the programs in the Homeland Security bill, nearly 100 percent of the funds in one particular grant program were earmarked in the most recent Homeland Security spending bill.

So what we are seeking to do is make sure that people who want to apply for

these grants are able to, and that Members aren't able to simply earmark that money for people in their district or favored entities.

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

I thank the chairman. And would that all chairmen shared your view on earmarks and programs of this type. I am glad the chairman has agreed to accept this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Speaker, someone with a lot of time on his hands, or more likely somebody with a pretty good search engine, found that the 2,000-page Pelosi health care bill uses the word ``shall'' more than 3,000 times. Now, that's an average of more than 1.5 times per page.

It seems about the only page where the word ``shall'' is not used is the page that states that Members of Congress ``may'' enroll in the government-run insurance option. No ``shall'' here, just ``may.'' In other words, what's good for the country isn't necessarily good for Congress.

I'd encourage anyone who is watching or listening out there to call the Speaker and ask her why. If this government-run insurance option is so good, why aren't Members of Congress required to enroll in it as well?

I thank the gentleman. I doubt I will take 8 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I submitted an amendment to the Rules Committee that would have prevented the Small Business Administration from engaging in the practice of making direct loans to private small businesses. I should mention that this amendment was germane. There was no problem. It wasn't out of order, and it should have been made in order here today.

The Capital Backstop Program, authorized by this legislation, would allow the SBA to make direct loans during a time of recession to small businesses that are denied loans by private lenders. In other words, the Federal Government will begin making loans using taxpayer dollars to finance small businesses that are unable to secure loans through the private sector.

Now, let's back up just a bit.

What the Small Business Administration does is it guarantees loans made by banks to businesses. In this case, if a bank won't lend money to a business even if that money is guaranteed by the Federal Government, then we might step in and lend money directly to that business. This is something we have not done in decades with the SBA.

Ask yourself: If a bank out there won't lend money with Federal guarantees, is it the proper role of the Federal taxpayer to step in and lend money directly to that business?

Maybe we ought to step back and say, There might be a problem here with that business. If a bank won't lend them money when that loan is guaranteed, why should we be lending them money? Why should we be exposing the taxpayer here?

Government interference in the private sector is not the only cause for concern over this program. Not long ago, Congress undertook a series of studies and hearings on the government-run Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which was a relic of the Great Depression that engaged in direct lending to private entities. I will mention we haven't done this for a long time, but we did at one point lend money directly to businesses.

The Depression had long since ended, but the RFC remained intact, and there were reports of corruption. One of the studies, called the Hoover Commission, submitted a report to the Congress in 1949. It warned--and I'll read directly from the report:

Direct lending by the government to persons or enterprises opens up dangerous possibilities of waste and favoritism to individuals and enterprises. It invites political and private pressure or even corruption.

This is what they found happened when we lent money directly to businesses in this fashion. Yet here we are today, willing to ignore our own reports in Congress, willing to ignore the lessons of the past, and willing to start engaging in this practice again.

Again, this bill authorizes a program which, after a bank has passed on giving a loan to a business even after we step in and say we'll guarantee that loan, the bank says, No, we still won't do it. So we say, Okay. We'll put taxpayers on the hook.

Now, why in the world wouldn't we allow an amendment today to have an up-or-down vote on whether to strike that provision of this new authorization? Why shouldn't we decide that here in this House? Why is it so important to rush this bill through without giving the Members of this body the opportunity to stand up and say, Hey, you know, we've produced reports in this Congress; we've had commissions which report that there is a problem when we have direct lending programs like this that, maybe, we ought to consider?

No. The Rules Committee says, We don't even want you to vote on that. We don't want anything to do with it. We'll just not allow it on the floor. We'll have a structured rule, and you won't have an opportunity to vote on it.

That simply isn't right, Mr. Speaker. I'm disappointed that we won't be able to debate the merits on this.

I would ask that the Members of this body vote ``no'' on this rule. Go back to the Rules Committee. Allow a rule to come to the floor that allows the Members of this body to actually exercise our franchise here. When we see a program that might have a problem, let's at least have an up-or-down vote and at least be able to decide if we should be doing this or not instead of just turning a blind eye and saying that the reports that this Congress has produced in the past and that the studies of the commissions that we've appointed don't matter because we know better now.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's vote down this rule, if we can't change this bill, to prohibit the direct lending to small businesses that banks won't even lend to after we guarantee those loans. If that provision isn't removed, we ought to vote down the bill.