Floor Statements

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would remove $600,000 from

the city of Emeryville, California, and return the money to FEMA's Pre- Disaster Mitigation account. The Pre-Disaster Mitigation account used to be awarded solely on the basis of merit. When we established the Department of Homeland Security, we were told time and time again, Don't worry. We're not going to earmark any funding in this legislation, or this bill will not be earmarked. We were told that for a couple of years. Now guess what--it was earmarked a couple of years ago. Now more, now more, now even more. Now there are well over 100 earmarks in the bill.

Of course the State of California is no stranger to floods. In fact, according to FEMA, since the year 2000, parts of California have been declared a major disaster due to flooding five times. But there are many other areas of the country that also suffer from flooding. Louisiana, we all know, is a State that often gets pounded with hurricanes and has also had five major disaster declarations due to flooding in the past 10 years alone. Yet Louisiana doesn't receive a single earmark in this year's Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund. How can this be? The answer is easy. When you abide by a process that rewards some Members over others, you wind up with a spoils system. And I would submit that's what we have with the Pre-Disaster Mitigation fund is a classic spoils system. Unless we can determine that mother nature somehow finds those districts represented by appropriators and sends more floods, more earthquakes, more natural disasters somehow to those districts or to the districts of powerful people on powerful committees, then we have a spoils system. That is an example here.

When we look at this year's Pre-Disaster Mitigation earmarks, we see of the $150 million appropriated for the grant program, altogether in this year's bill, more than $24 million is earmarked. There are a total of 58 pre-disaster earmarks. Nearly 30 percent of them go to members of the Appropriations Committee. When you consider the dollar value of these 58 earmarks, the picture becomes even bleaker. Nearly 40 percent of the funds earmarked for Pre-Disaster Mitigation are going to districts represented by members on the Appropriations Committee.

Again, unless Mother Nature knows which districts are represented by appropriators, we've got a problem here. Appropriators make up just 13 percent of this legislative body. So 13 percent of the House will take home 40 percent of Pre-Disaster Mitigation spoils. Homeland Security earmarks, as a whole, favor Members who serve in a position of power, either as an appropriator, in leadership, as a chairman or a ranking minority member of the committee. If that's not a spoils system, I don't know what is. We ought to let this Pre-Disaster Mitigation program work as it should.

A while ago the Department of Homeland Security asked if this account could be distributed with a risk-based formula, but the committee said no. They wanted to keep the same competitive grant formula, a competitive grant formula that really isn't competitive at all because a quarter of it is already earmarked; and within a few years, it will probably all be earmarked. And guess what--it will largely go to the districts represented by appropriators or those in powerful committee positions.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, let me just say again here's a chart. This is FEMA predisaster earmarks secured by appropriators, leadership, committee Chairs, and ranking members. If we look here at fiscal year 2009 and 2010, again 49 and 51 percent respectively, the money is going to powerful appropriators or committee Chairs or ranking minority members that represent just 25 percent of the body.

Again, I will yield anybody time who can stand and say with a straight face that Mother Nature targets districts represented by appropriators or committee Chairs or ranking minority members. I don't think that's the way it is.

I have great respect for the gentlewoman from California. We have worked together on a number of issues. And this is not just an issue that anybody has with this particular earmark, but it is with many in this piece of legislation. We need to ensure that FEMA looks and does this on a risk-based way where they look at risk and award accordingly. When Members of Congress do an earmark, it simply becomes a spoils system; and, unfortunately, I think that's what we are seeing here.

So I would urge support for the amendment.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would remove an earmark of $1 million for the Harris County Flood Control District and would return money to FEMA's Predisaster Mitigation Fund. This is a similar amendment to the one that I just offered. These are earmarks to the Predisaster Mitigation Fund, as I mentioned before.

It used to be that when organizations at the local level wanted to apply for this funding, they submitted a proposal to FEMA. FEMA has a 70-page guidance document for people applying for these grants. Unfortunately, when people apply now, 25 percent of the money that was in this grant program is gone because it's earmarked. It's been taken away, taken off the top. Where it really wasn't before. And as I mentioned before, when you have one-quarter of this funding taken, we find that 40 percent of the value goes to just 25 percent of the Members or actually 40 percent of the value goes to just 13 percent of the Members in this body, those districts represented by appropriators.

And, again, I will gladly yield time to anybody who can stand and say that Mother Nature targets districts by appropriators or other powerful Members more than Mother Nature does other districts. It simply doesn't happen.

But, again, FEMA has asked if they could establish a more risk-based program where they could evaluate risk and allocate funding accordingly. That's how it should be done. But we in Congress have said no, because why? We like the system how it is because it's easy to earmark and it makes it more likely that Members, particularly of the Appropriations Committee, can get earmarks for their district. And that's what we have here.

In this particular case, this flood control district, before we started earmarking this account, applied for a grant under the Predisaster Mitigation Program and got a grant. So competitively they established that they had need for it. That's how it should be. But then the next year I don't know if it was going to get the grant or just didn't want to apply, but money was earmarked and then the next year earmarked again. Now this year there's another earmark for that same flood control district.

I think it's time to let FEMA decide under a risk-based formula where this funding should go. We all know the process here. It's why we have a commission to close military bases because we simply can't discipline ourselves as Members to say that base in my district may need to be closed, and then we move to protect other people's bases if they'll protect ours. The process of logrolling takes effect. That's why it's best to establish criteria and let the agency do the work. If we don't like how they do it, we exercise oversight and force them to change the program and to do it equitably. But to do it this way just means that a spoils system occurs, and that's what we have here.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I ask the time remaining.

I will be glad to yield to the gentleman 30 more seconds if you want to go on. You are making my case.

Announcement by the Chair

The East Valley.

Reclaiming my time.

I'm a slow learner.

Let me remind the gentleman that this district, Harris County, received $1 million when they applied for the funding before the earmarks started, 2 years ago, last year, I'm sorry, 3 years ago--2 years ago got a $1 million earmark, last year got another $1 million earmark, this year asking for a third $1 million earmark. And we just had another member of the Texas delegation stand just moments ago and offer an amendment to move money to the predisaster mitigation account because he couldn't get the funding for his district in Texas because 25 percent of the funding, by the time people in his district even applied for the funding, is gone. It is earmarked, cut off the top.

And I already explained the spoils system that is here, and still nobody has taken me up on my offer. I will yield time to anybody who can tell me that Mother Nature targets districts represented by appropriators.

It simply doesn't happen.

No thanks. I know better. But I believe my time is out.

I urge adoption of the amendment. We simply have to be more fiscally responsible. And we have to have a system at FEMA that is based on risk and merit rather than spoils. This is a system based on spoils right now. That is why the adoption of the amendment should be done.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would remove $10 million in funding for the National Institute for Homeland Security based in Somerset, Kentucky, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

This is not the first time I have brought this earmark to the floor. This earmark is always noticeable if for nothing else the cost. Compared to most earmarks in the bill, this is one of the largest earmarks we have in the Homeland Security bill year after year. This year the earmark alone would cost taxpayers $10 million, and if approved, this would actually be the lowest dollar amount the institute has received since its creation in 2004. According to the Web site, the National Institute for Homeland Security is an

independent, nonprofit corporation designed to allow universities in Kentucky to ``more effectively compete for research funds and projects aimed at improving homeland security.''

It goes on to say that the institute's end goal is to match up local universities with projects, then commercialize the resulting product.

Madam Chairman, we all know that Congress has a problem with spending overall. We have a $7.87 billion stimulus package. We had a massive omnibus appropriations bill, we have had numerous bailouts of private companies. Now we are facing nearly $2 trillion in deficits just this year. When I came to this body just 8 years ago, our total budget was around $2 trillion. Now we will have a deficit by the same amount. Yet here we are; we are funding a nonprofit organization, which again, according to its own Web site, apparently would not exist without the assistance of Congress. And it seems that the purpose of this center is to attract other earmarks. It is an institute that seems to beget other earmarks.

I simply don't think that we can continue to do this. Since it was created, the institute has received $74 million in taxpayer funding: $12 million in 2005; $20 million in both 2006 and 2007; $11 million in both 2008 and 2009. When will this end? When will we say enough is enough? We have funded this institute enough, and it will have to compete on its own for other grants.

I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire of the time remaining?

Let me just say first there have been a few statements first that imply that the Department of Homeland Security or FEMA in the case of the last two amendments somehow endorsed these amendments or endorsed these projects. According to OMB, the administration responses about earmark requests ``should not be construed as an evaluation or recommendation of specific earmark requests based on merit or value.'' So we can say that, hey, the agency wants this. But the official position of the administration is, We are taking no position. And of course, they really can't because these earmark dollars are sometimes taken from the account that they would otherwise use to give grants based on merit or based on risk.

Again, this chart is even starker when we look at the overall bill that we are considering today. Homeland security earmark dollars secured by appropriators, leadership, committee chairs, and ranking members. FY 09, 45 percent--45 percent--of the total in earmark dollars in the bill went to this group. This group represents just 25 percent of the body.

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman. I think we all know that the alignment of appropriators and Members in powerful positions does not align with the gulf coast or any other geographic position.

Getting back to the chart, 45 percent last year went to those in powerful positions; 45 percent to 25 percent. This year it is even starker: 71 percent of all earmark dollars in this bill are going to 25 percent of this body. That is a spoil system. I don't know how else you can claim otherwise, unless as I said, and I will yield simply for the purpose if somebody can stand up and say that Mother Nature targets this group more than others, then this is a spoil system. When we have here an earmark that has been over and over and over awarded, $74 million in taxpayer funding, $12 million in 2005, $20 million in both 2006 and 2007.

I will yield to the gentleman only if he will answer the question yes or no: Does Mother Nature target districts represented by appropriators?

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I have an amendment at the desk, amendment No. 1.

Madam Chairman, I hesitate to challenge this earmark. It was secured by my colleague from Arizona, Mr. Pastor, for whom I have great admiration and we have a great friendship, but this amendment would remove $800,000 for the portable solar charging rechargeable battery system, and it would lower the bill by a commensurate amount.

According to the earmark table itself, the recipient of this earmark is Global Solar, who, according to the Web site, is a ``privately held company that was incorporated in 1996 that has evolved into a major producer of solar cells.''

The certification letter filed by the earmark's sponsor says the money will be used ``for the acquisition of man-packable, solar- charging, rechargeable battery systems for use by the U.S. Border Patrol.''

My concern is not with the technology nor with the needs of the Border Patrol, nor with this company in particular. My concern lies with why a specific for-profit entity was designated to receive this earmark funding.

The President recently referred to earmarks for for-profit entities as the ``single most corrupting element of this practice.''

The PMA scandal that has plagued the House of Representatives for months has largely centered on campaign contributions and earmarks for for-profit entities. We simply cannot move ahead as if nothing is happening outside of this body, or even within this body. We have our own Ethics Committee, and the Justice Department is investigating the relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks, and that is largely the case when you have earmarks that go to for-profit companies, earmarks that are little more than sole-source contracts or no-bid contracts.

This is the only one gratefully in this legislation that I have been able to find, an earmark that goes to a for-profit entity, and I would submit, Madam Chair, that we simply shouldn't be earmarking funds for private companies in this legislation.

I urge adoption of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, we have that language saying that this earmark would be awarded under full and open competition. But if you meet with the Department of Defense, as I have, and you ask them, Currently, do you compete out? Do you subject to competition the earmarks that you see? They will say, Yes; yes, unless we don't, basically.

So I asked them--if we look at the 2008 Defense bill, for example, I asked the Department of Defense to actually look and do a random sampling of the earmarks that came that they say are subject to competition to see how many of them actually went to the earmark recipient listed. With uncanny precision, the answer came back all of them that they sampled did go to the earmark recipient listed. If these are to be competed out, why do we have to mention the company at all?

I don't know if it is in order to ask for a unanimous consent to simply remove the name of the company. If these are going to be competed out anyway and if there are at least three companies that have this technology, would it not be in order to say----

Yes, I would yield.

Would it be in order to modify the amendment under a unanimous consent?

I would ask unanimous consent to modify the amendment to strike the name of the company listed in order that this may be subject to full and open competition.

I understand.

As I mentioned before, I have the utmost respect for my colleague from Arizona. He is a straight shooter, and I know that if it were up to him, he would do this. And I think that some things go on their own without sometimes us realizing what we are doing.

But in this case, the language stands that this earmark is to go to a specific company despite other language that may be in the legislation to say this is to be competed out. We know, based on experience, that the Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, in this case, the agency, looks to see what the committee wanted and they will award it based on that, and so it really isn't full and open competition. We shouldn't be listing the company here.

So I would have to urge adoption of the amendment to strike this earmark unless we can remove the company listed.

Yes.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk as designee of Mr. Campbell.

I feel obligated, since I ran out of time, to explain why simply because the language isn't in the bill itself or the name of the company that that still means that the earmark will likely go to the company listed.

In the past few years, the previous President said that he would instruct the agencies not to fund any earmarks that weren't in the bill text. And so as a way to get around it and make sure that those earmarks were funded, the Appropriations Committee actually inserted language saying that language in the report would carry the force of law. And so that's what we've been operating under for the past couple of years to make sure that those earmarks that are simply in a table or in a report still get funded.

In this case, we have language that will be in the table, the table that accompanies the bill in the report. The table in the report lists the company, Global Solar, that is to receive the earmark. And there is a certification that the Member filed saying this earmark is to go to this company at this address. And so, notwithstanding the fact that the language isn't in the bill itself, we still have an issue where the earmark will likely go to the intended recipient.

This amendment would remove $1 million for funding for the National Institute for Communications Interoperability, a nonprofit organization and a subsidiary of SEARCH, the National Consortium for Justice Information and Statistics. In recent testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, the executive director of SEARCH described the organization as a ``State criminal justice support program with a mission to promote the effective use of information and identification technology by criminal justice agencies nationwide.''

This entity just received a $500,000 earmark in the omnibus bill that Congress approved just a few short months ago. According to the sponsor's office, this particular earmark would support the launch of a nationwide institute to train emergency responders to better command and control emergency resources. The proposed pilot project would provide training, certification and outreach programs to State, regional and local coordinators in the first responder community.

Now, this sounds strikingly familiar to a program within the Department of Homeland Security, one that they already administer. The Department of Homeland Security SAFECOM program has developed the Statewide Communications Interoperability Planning Methodology, a comprehensive 10-phase process created to assist States in the creation of their statewide emergency communication plan.

Now, why should Federal funds be earmarked for a private organization that seems to duplicate an effort already undertaken by the agency for which we are appropriating now? If the Department of Homeland Security requires services that only SEARCH could provide, the administration could request funds for it.

So, Madam Chairman, I don't think that we need to earmark funds here. There is a program within the Department of Homeland Security already that does what this private organization--which has just received an earmark in a bill we did a few months ago--is seeking to do.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

I would urge adoption of the amendment. As I mentioned, when you look at the bill itself, you see again the spoils system that's occurring here: 71 percent of the dollar value of earmarks in this legislation go to just 25 percent of this body; 71 percent goes to 25 percent. That's not an equal distribution.

As we know, Mother Nature does not target those districts represented by appropriators or powerful Members, yet we have a system that awards earmarks based on those criteria.

Yes.

That's right. And I'm also aware that the Department of Homeland Security has a similar program that does similar things, yet we are earmarking over and above on top of that.

I simply think that if we don't like the way the Department of Homeland Security is allocating resources, we need to change that or we need to give them guidance; we need to oversee what they do. For example, in my district a couple of years ago, the Department of Homeland Security spent money to synchronize street lights in a small town in my district. That wasn't an appropriate use of funds. But instead of spending time rooting out that kind of waste, we're saying we don't like the way you did that, so we're going to do some of our own. And so it is a duplicative program. And in the end, we end up spending more money and more money; and that's why the budget increases for this agency every year.

We simply cannot continue to do this when we have a $2 trillion budget deficit this year alone. At some point we've got to say we've got to save taxpayer money, spend it wisely, and do it in a way that actually addresses risk, not seniority.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

This body at this time sits under a cloud. We have investigations from the Justice Department and an investigation by our own Ethics Committee into the intersection between campaign contributions and earmarks. More specifically, earmarks that go to for-profit companies, sole-source contracts, no-bid contracts, that's what earmarks basically are, that are going to, in particular, defense contractors. And then contributions come back from individuals who represent those groups and the lobbyists who represent those groups, so-called ``circular fundraising.'' That's being investigated, as I mentioned, by the Justice Department and our own Ethics Committee.

And yet this rule will set in motion a process by which we will approve more than 300 in this bill alone, 300 earmarks, no-bid contracts, for private companies, for-profit companies. Again, in this legislation, if this rule is approved, this legislation will provide more than 600 earmarks, more than half of which, over 300 of which, represent no-bid contracts to private companies. We simply cannot continue to do this, Mr. Speaker.

I offered an amendment that would prohibit Members from giving earmarks or no-bid contracts to their campaign contributors. That amendment was not ruled in order. It should have been. We should as a body decide that we cannot continue this practice. We need to remove the cloud that hangs over this body that rains on Republicans and Democrats alike.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

I, too, went to the Rules Committee to testify last night to try to have an amendment ruled in order, an amendment that was germane; there was no problem with its relevance to the bill. It was not dilatory, it wasn't seeking to delay anything. It was to address a very real problem that we have.

The problem that we have, Mr. Speaker, is that we have, that we know of, a number of investigations from the Justice Department going on right now examining the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. They're looking at the process of circular fundraising where Members of Congress will secure earmarks, or in other words, no- bid contracts for their campaign contributors. The money goes out, taxpayer money, campaign money comes back in.

Now, whether we want to admit it or not, the Justice Department is looking at this. We can talk until we're blue in the face, say there is no quid pro quo here. We're giving earmarks to those that we think need them. These no-bid contracts are going to companies that really need them. And whether or not they turned around and individuals from that organization or the lobbyists that represent them, if they contribute tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars back to my campaign committee, that's okay because it's not a quid pro quo. Whether we say that until we're blue in the face doesn't change the fact that the Justice Department seems to feel differently, and they're conducting investigations.

Now I think we do feel differently because just a few weeks ago, we authorized or instructed our own Ethics Committee to reveal whether or not they were conducting an investigation that essentially looks into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. They have since indicated that they are.

So now we have the Justice Department looking into the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. We have our own Ethics Committee looking into that relationship, and yet we have, Mr. Speaker, our own Ethics Committee still issuing guidance to the Members of this body that campaign contributions do not constitute financial interest. In other words, whether or not you can contribute or give an earmark to a company, that company's executives and their lobbyists can turn around and give you campaign contributions the next day or the day before. That's okay according to guidance coming from our own Ethics Committee--the same Ethics Committee that is investigating the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions.

The purpose of the Ethics Committee, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that the dignity of this House is maintained, that we rise above it all, that we have a standard that is perhaps higher than perhaps others have. We should have a standard that's higher than whether or not Members can be indicted or convicted over behavior that takes place here. Yet, we're allowing the Ethics Committee to issue guidance that says, It's okay. That, Mr. Speaker, is wrong.

What this amendment would have done is said that no money could be spent in the bill to implement that guidance. I can't think of many more pressing issues in this House than that. It's germane. There is no reason that it couldn't be brought up and be part of the amendments that were offered today, but the Rules Committee said ``no'' for no other reason than they didn't want to stop the practice.

We have come to rely on earmarking to raise money around here. That's the bottom line. And we can't continue it if we're going to uphold the dignity of this body.

Mr. Speaker, at some point we will decouple the relationship between earmarks and campaign contributions. We have to. I just hope that we do it sooner rather than later and not have to wait to uphold the dignity of this body.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as No. 87 in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the National Drug Intelligence Center and reduce the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. This is not the first time I have come to the floor to try to strike funding for the NDIC, but this is the first time I have tried to come and strike this earmark when it was requested by the President. In times past, the earmark was requested by another Member of Congress, but this time the President has taken it up.

After years of trying to close down this entity, the administration has decided that they want to keep it. It has been described by the previous administration as duplicative and ineffective. I think that just about every report we have seen on this center has said that. It is a considerable amount of money, I believe $44 million. We should be saving that.

According to the administration officials, by including funding for the NDIC in his budget request, the President helped to establish the Department of Justice as the NDIC's permanent funding source. In this case, I think ``permanent'' is a troubling word, particularly when it regards the NDIC.

Reportedly, this shift will also change the NDIC's name to the Center For Strategic Excellence. As Shakespeare once wrote, A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. I submit that the metaphor remains true, only it is not the perfume of roses that we smell here with the

Mr. Chairman, I'm often told we shouldn't be challenging Member earmarks. We shouldn't be challenging them because we ought to be going after those faceless bureaucrats and the things that the administration proposes that we don't look at enough. And I agree, certainly.

So here's a case where the administration, not just the previous administration, but administrations before that have said this is duplicative. It's a center in search of a mission, and it ought to be shut down. You could save $44 million a year. And yet we won't do it. If we're not going to shut down a center like this, where are we going to cut?

Let me just quote, according to the Department of Justice Budget and Performance Summary for Fiscal Year 2010: ``The most significant challenge for NDIC currently is its lack of a permanent funding source.''

Now, think of that for a minute. If that's the biggest challenge they've got, not, you know, finding a strategic mission or way to aid in our drug control effort, but is finding a permanent funding source. That seems to be their mission. And from what we know, that may be mission accomplished now, because the President is seeking to put it under DOJ where it will remain permanently.

But we in Congress, it's our role, part of our oversight function is to ensure that money is not wasted by those, I'm always told, faceless bureaucrats. Here's a perfect example of where we can make a difference, where we can save money, and we ought to do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 86 in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $500,000 funding for the Innovative Science Learning Center at ScienceSouth in Florence, South Carolina, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

According to its Web site, ScienceSouth is a nonprofit institution established in 2000 by educators and business leaders and seeks to advance scientific understanding and increase the competitiveness of future generations.

ScienceSouth offers programming for schools and families, as well as summer camp sessions, and currently offers hands-on science workshops at its newly opened ScienceSouth pavilion.

Additionally, ScienceSouth is planning to open a new permanent facility. It's unclear whether the Innovative Science Learning Center is connected to this. There's no mention of it in the ScienceSouth Web site, and my staff was unable to find any information on the center online. This project is likely connected to the growth of this institution. Perhaps we'll have clarification here.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the sponsor of the project that ScienceSouth appears to offer a valuable service to the community. I appreciate efforts to make learning fun for families. I applaud ScienceSouth's decision to expand.

However, I have to question how essential it is that ScienceSouth receive Federal funding. According to the Web site, ScienceSouth counts DeLoitte and Touche, I guess, Honda, Wachovia, AT&T, Bank of America and many other as its sponsors. It's also received funding from the State legislature, and holds an annual gala to raise funds from private donors. Yet year after year, we see earmarks such as these approved by the House; and year after year, some of us try to come to the floor of this House and ask why. Why do we continue to fund these projects?

We're often told that we're trying to wean them off Federal funding. Yet, that weaning never seems to be accomplished.

This year I'd also like to draw attention to the fact that earmarks like this exist because we have a pretty powerful spoils system. It favors powerful Members of Congress over just about everyone else.

With more than 1,000 earmarks in this bill, a full review and breakdown of earmarks was in tall order. However, you look at just a glance at one earmarked account in this bill, the COPS Law Enforcement and Technology account reveals that Members of the House leadership, appropriators, committee chairmen and ranking members are taking home more than 45 percent of the earmarked dollars in that account.

I wish I could say this was the exception to the rule. Unfortunately, it's not.

When you look at last year's Defense spending bill, for example, the same powerful Members took home 54 percent of the total earmarks contained in

the bill. I'd remind my colleagues that this subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this body.

Mr. Chairman, I often hear that Members know their districts better than those faceless bureaucrats. I would think it would be a tough case to make that only Members of the Appropriations Committee, or only Members who are in leadership positions on both sides of the aisle, they just happen to know their districts a lot better than anybody else, than the rank-and-file Members. Else, why should they get nearly half of the earmarks when they comprise less than a quarter of the body?

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of commendable education programs, and this is certainly one that is fulfilling its objective.

We are facing a $2 trillion deficit this year alone, and I think it behooves us as Members of Congress to make some choices at some time. I think all of us would love to have money for every worthy project that's out there, but here is a project that is receiving a lot of money from the private sector. I listed off some of the sponsors. They've been able to get large grants from corporations, and that speaks well for this program. Yet it has been around for 9 years, and since 2002, it has received $1.6 million in earmarks from this body.

At what point do we say, ``Enough is enough''? At what point do we say, ``Yes, it is time to wean this program off of Federal dollars''? If not now, when? When we hit a $3 trillion deficit? At what point do we say, ``We're spending too much''? We all know that we have to borrow any money that we spend on any of these programs because we're running a $2 trillion deficit. I would simply submit that we have got to make some cuts somewhere, and we don't seem to be willing to do it anywhere. So, with that, I would urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 85 in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would remove $1 million for the Environmental Science Initiative at Drew University, and it would lower the cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

I have nothing against environmental science. I think very highly of the gentleman who has sponsored this earmark, but I do have a problem with handing out these kinds of earmarks to private universities. Drew University is not only a private institution; it also has a reported endowment of more than $268 million. In addition, the university was recently awarded a grant of $950,000 by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, a grant that was for the establishment of the new Environmental Studies and Sustainability major at the school. This is according to the university's Web site.

I applaud Drew University. It speaks highly of the university that it was

able to secure a grant from a foundation like the Mellon Foundation. Yet it's curious, in light of this grant, that Drew University should receive a $1 million earmark for what the sponsor said is the development of new environmental studies courses for the construction and improvement of science laboratories.

It sounds to me like this new course of study at Drew University not only got a $1 million grant from the foundation for the new major but that it is also getting a $1 million grant from the taxpayers as well. I'm sure the curriculum Drew offers is competitive and noteworthy, but so are the curricula of many universities across the country.

Mr. Chairman, there has been increasing attention paid to earmarks for private companies. What do we do about earmarks to private universities that have demonstrated their ability to secure generous grants from prestigious foundations? Why do the Federal taxpayers have to provide funding as well?

Drew University has the benefit of relationships with influential Members of Congress, obviously; but does that justify this kind of earmark?

As I mentioned, there is a bit of a spoil system here. I mentioned the CJS spending bill overall. When you look at simply one program, again, like the COPS grant, it contains nearly $123 million in earmarked funds. Powerful Members of Congress, appropriators, leadership, and committee chairs and ranking members are taking home more than $55 million of that. That represents 45 percent of the total dollars earmarked. Yet I would remind my colleagues again that this subset of Members comprises only 25 percent of this legislative body.

I would submit that the taxpayers have already had an education. We've received an education in Congress' wasteful earmarking ways. We don't need to subsidize a private university in this manner. I urge support of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, again I would say if we're not going to cut spending here, where are we going to do it? If we can't say that we are not going to give a million dollar grant to a private university that just received a million dollar grant, or close to, from the Mellon Foundation for an almost identical purpose, a private university that has an endowment of $268 million while we have a public debt of about $11 trillion and a deficit this year of $2 trillion, if we can't decide that we are not going to give a million dollar earmark in this manner, where are we going to cut? When are we going to say enough is enough? We're spending too much.

So I commend those who are looking for ways to save, but I have to remain a little skeptical if we can't do away with programs like this, with earmarks like this.

With that, I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk designated as No. 91 in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike a $4 million earmark for the JASON Project and lower the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount.

The JASON Project was founded in 1989. It's been around for 18 years. According to their Web site, the purpose of the organization is to design science curriculum for fifth- to eighth-grade classrooms.

We all know that science is important for any child's education, and if local schools wish to supplement their science curriculum with the services provided by the JASON Project, I believe they certainly should have that choice.

However, this earmark is going to the JASON Project organization, not to the schools who wish to purchase its products. This $4 million earmark is one of the largest in this year's CJS bill, and I remain unconvinced that JASON is so desperately in need of Federal funding.

In 1995 JASON became a subsidiary of National Geographic, one of the world's largest nonprofit science and educational organizations. In addition to the funding it receives from National Geographic, JASON is also partners with NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Motorola Foundation, Shell Oil Company, and Microsoft also provide funding for JASON.

Why, with so many resources, does the JASON Project still receive earmarks year after year after year? This

is just the latest year that we have challenged this earmark on the floor, and we're always told it's vital, we've got to have it. Next year, it's vital, we've got to have it. When does the $4 million a year stop?

According to the JASON Project, support from all of these groups enables the organization to offer its educational resources online for free. However, all of JASON's curriculum materials must be purchased, costing schools $788 for a classroom pack and about $2,500 for a school pack. In 2007 the JASON Project was the recipient of a $2.2 million earmark. Last year JASON received $5.6 million from the Federal Government.

The JASON Project has been so effective in securing money that its Web site offers tips for teachers in securing funds from local entities in order to buy JASON products. So here's what they offer: They offer tips to teachers to go out and secure funds from local entities in order to buy JASON products.

If the JASON Project can't continue its operations without Federal funds after 18 years, I think you have to question its effectiveness. We have to stop funding projects like this year after year after year.

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

Mr. Chairman, we talk a lot about investment here. And it seems that when we want to spend money that we don't have, we call it an investment and assume everybody is going to be okay with it. We've invested so much that we have a $2 trillion deficit now. We've got to stop investing, spending, whatever you want to call it, if we want to get out of this deficit; and this seems a perfect place to start.

The Member mentioned that this is money well spent, that it's a great return on investment. I'll tell you what was a great return on investment. Over the past decade, the JASON Project has spent about $1 million lobbying the Federal Government, in most cases, I think, lobbying for earmarks like this. For that $1 million, they've invested in lobbying this body. They've received tens of millions of dollars in earmarks. That's a pretty good investment, if you ask me; but it's nothing that we ought to just be proud of taking part in. At some point we've got to say, hey, there are a lot of private organizations that are helping this organization. At some point they need to be weaned off of Federal dollars. I would submit that $4 million in an earmark this year, when we have a deficit of $2 trillion, is simply too much. If we're not going to stand up here on this, again, I have to ask, when are we going to stand up and start paring down this deficit? It's amazing that we just don't see a real commitment here in this body at this time to actually take control of Federal spending. It's unfortunate we're not seeing it on this earmark, from the sounds of it; but I'd like to urge support of it. Maybe now is the time that we'll stand up and say, Enough is enough. I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, designated as amendment No. 84 in the Congressional Record.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This amendment would remove $325,000 in funding for the Institute for Seafood Studies at the Nicholls State University Department of Biological Sciences in Thibodaux, Louisiana, and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. It's my understanding that this money would be used to fund the creation of an Institute for Seafood Studies with the purpose of increasing and coordinating research related to sustainable fisheries and the seafood industry.

Mr. Chairman, it would seem that we're developing a trend in the House, funding seafood earmarks. It seems a little fishy to me. We keep coming up with--there are lobster things, there are shrimp things, there are a lot of seafood things here in the bill, and then we never seem to be offsetting this spending anywhere else. It's just another earmark for this or for that or for this or for that.

Every year we approve earmarks for projects associated with lobsters, like I mentioned, crabs, mussels, oysters, whales, salmon, horseshoe crabs, trout, shrimp. The list goes on and on and on. And now we are going to approve an earmark that creates an institute, literally, to study seafood. It's not enough to fund all of these other things. Now we have to create an institute to study seafood. And I would venture a guess that we'll be back here next year with another earmark for that same program because now that we have an institute created by the Federal Government through an earmark, then who is going to sustain it but the Federal Government with another earmark and earmarks in perpetuity?

This earmark is only one of a thousand earmarks in this bill. As I mentioned, this is another example of where we always hear that Members know their districts best, but when you look at the earmarks funded in this legislation, you see the same spoils system that we see elsewhere.

Again, I have to ask, does an appropriator or does a member of the leadership or a ranking member or a chairman of the committee just happen to know his district that much better than a rank-and-file Member, that they should receive almost double in dollar amount and in number of the earmarks that are proffered by this institution? That sounds fishy to me as well.

We often get high-minded about, you know, we have to stand up for the prerogatives of the House and that we keep our ability to earmark because we know better than those faceless bureaucrats. But why do only some of the Members here know better? And it always seems to me that it is the same Members again and again.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the time remaining.

First, this is the last amendment tonight. I want to thank the Members for staying around this long. I know their time is more valuable than mine, and I appreciate your indulgence here on this important process, and I apologize for keeping people this long, particularly those who came to defend their projects.

The Member mentioned that it's important that we think of the little guys here. The last time I checked, we have an $11 trillion debt. That amounts to about $36,000 per American, per person; for a family of four, obviously it's

much bigger than that. It's time we start looking out for them.

If we look at this bill itself, CJS, it's 12 percent bigger than it was last year. In the year that we're running record deficits every year, we're expanding this bill by 12 percent.

I appreciate what the Member said about the last 8 years. We missed a historic opportunity as Republicans to actually rein in spending. We didn't do it, to our eternal shame, and that's part of the reason we're smack dab in the minority today. We put ourselves on a course toward a fiscal cliff.

But now we're still headed toward that fiscal cliff. And with bills like this that cost 12 percent more than last year, we've stepped on the accelerator. Why are we doing that? And if we can't stop creating new institutes to study seafood or anything else, then where are we going to cut? Where is the fiscal responsibility that we keep hearing about that's being employed? I just can't see it here.

And like I said, we're creating a new institute here, a new institute that will now be reliant, I'm sure--I will bet just about anything that we will be back next year with another earmark for that same seafood institute that we just created because we've just got to keep it going now. And that will just add more to the deficit. Remember, we have to spend more every year.

I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman not at all for bringing that up. I had hoped to improve my batting average by coming to the floor tonight, and it doesn't seem that I have. So I will have to settle for the one triple.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 84: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 85: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 86: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 87: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 88: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 89: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 90: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 91: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 80: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 81: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 82: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: