Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit a million dollars, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to fund an earmark for the ACE Program at the Maricopa County Community Colleges.

While I am often criticized for meddling in the congressional districts of other Members in my attempts to make Federal spending on earmarks transparent, that accusation would be unfounded with this amendment.

As the saying goes, ``all politics is local,'' and this amendment makes that a truism, with a portion of Maricopa County within the boundaries of the district I represent.

As I am sure the sponsor of this earmark will be proud to tell you, the Achieving a College Education program was started in 1988 at one of the community colleges in the Maricopa system, and has spread to all 10 of its institutions.

According to the ACE Program Web site, the program is a partnership between community colleges and local high schools that was designed to reduce dropouts among at-risk high school students and transition them to community colleges and university studies.

It would be foolish and not truthful for me to stand here and say the program is not making a valuable contribution to Maricopa County. However, the criteria for receiving another Federal handout of $1 million cannot and should not rest simply on whether a program is doing valuable things.

I am certain that at many, if not all, of the hundreds upon hundreds of community colleges across the country there are important programs that are making valuable contributions to their communities. Surely the taxpayer shouldn't have to fund all of those programs. So how do we choose? How does Congress decide which important, valuable programs get funded with taxpayer dollars and which do not?

The willingness of Members of Congress to give Federal handouts to a select few has led to more than $5 billion in earmarks in this appropriations bill, a bill that is more than $1 billion over the President's request and has garnered a veto threat because of it.

In addition, this earmark is focused on education and raises the question of

why it is being funded out of the account of the Office of the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. It is my understanding that Federal funding for the ACE Program came through the Department of Housing and Urban Development in previous years.

Other earmarks in the account of the Office of the Administrator for educational programs seem to highlight math and science education. While components of the ACE Program highlight math, science, technology or engineering, this appears to be only one facet of the program and not the sole purpose at all. In fact, other components also appear to highlight health services, business industry technology, community service, adult education, personal finance, and other areas.

I would submit to my colleagues again that if simply having a program that makes a valuable contribution were enough to warrant being awarded millions of dollars, the Treasury would soon be empty.

Further, I would submit that an earmark of this variety is misplaced in the Energy and Water appropriations bill, and should at the very least be considered in the upcoming Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Pastor, and I know of his concern for education and his commitment there.

The point I would make again is there are many valuable programs out there. There are thousands and thousands of community colleges out there. I would think that we simply have to stop saying all right, we are going to fund this one or we are going to fund that one without some kind of criteria that should be set by somebody else other than Members of Congress because we are in a position where it happens politically.

Now that is not to say that decisions by Federal agencies aren't political. They often are. That's the responsibility of oversight, for us to step in and say you ought to have this criteria or this merit- based selection process or this competitive grant process.

But for us to say we don't like the way the Federal agencies do it so we are going to do it ourselves, I would think is not the wisest course. With that, I would urge support of the amendment. We simply can't fund all of the programs, the good programs that are out there, and maintain any type of position here in Congress of being equal or being good stewards of the taxpayer dollars. With that, I would urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $750,000, and reduce the cost of the bill by a consistent amount, from being used to fund an earmark for the Alliance for NanoHealth, or ANH.

The ANH is comprised of seven universities and scientific institutions headquartered in Houston, Texas.

ANH's mission is to collectively bridge the disciplines to develop nanotechnology-based solutions to unresolved problems in medicine.

This earmark, according to the certification letters submitted by the sponsor, will be used for electron microscopy equipment, a high- resolution CCD camera, freezing apparatuses as well, for training and for upgrades for shared equipment purchases.

In 2004, the Federal Government provided $2.4 million in start-up funding for the alliance through an earmark in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. In fiscal year 2005, the Alliance for NanoHealth received a total of $7.4 million in Federal earmarks.

In addition to the earmark in this bill, ANH is scheduled to receive another $1 million for fiscal year 2008 in the Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill.

There is a competitive and transparent process for awarding Federal research contracts and Federal grants, but this is not it.

Let me be clear. I congratulate the alliance for its work and for its contributions to society. I believe that we, as lawmakers, should do everything we can to encourage more private sector research and development activity, but there is a troubling and growing tendency to replace private sector activity with governmental intervention. This earmark bears witness to that.

Just look at the 2006 endowment ratings for the university members of the Alliance for NanoHealth: Number 4 on the list, University of Texas system, $13.2 billion; number 10 on the list, Texas A&M, $5.6 billion; number 55, Baylor Medical School, $1.1 billion; and the list goes on.

Let us not allow the Federal Government to push private donors aside and remove the incentive for them to contribute in this or any other endeavor.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to have some kind of discussion on this, but apparently not. Apparently the sponsor of the earmark doesn't want to speak to it or we're just going to leave it.

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

Mr. Chairman, there is another disturbing trend here. It's often thought that if there is a bipartisan basis for the offering of these earmarks that it's okay. As long as 60 percent goes to the majority, 40 percent to the minority, then it's okay whatever you fund. That shouldn't be the basis on which we distribute taxpayer dollars at all.

In this case, for science grants there is a competitive and transparent process at the Federal agency level. If we're not happy with that process, we should intervene in that process, change it, mandate a more competitive process or a change in the process, instead of supplanting that process with one of our own that is far less competitive, that really is just political, because it pits one Member against another or one committee against another.

That's not how money should be awarded. If the agencies have too much money, we should cut it. If they don't have enough, we should add more. We should stipulate, we should mandate, we should have oversight of those agencies. But basically saying we're just going to have our own process because we don't like what they're doing over there is not the right way to go.

And I would say that this earmark is a good example of that, and for that reason, I offer the amendment and would urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I was tempted just not to offer any other amendments and just offer this one because this one is important for everyone to focus on because it points at problems not just with the earmark itself but with the process that we have in the House. And I would submit that we are not following that process as we should.

This amendment would strike funding for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure. The center is to receive $1 million in taxpayer funding in this bill.

When searching on the Web, my staff and I were unable to find the center's Web site. I'm not sure whether the center currently exists or whether this earmark creates the center. I would appreciate if the sponsor of this earmark would clear that up.

All the bill says is that it funds $1 million for the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure in Pennsylvania. However, when you look at the certification letter that each Member now, according to our earmark rule, is required to submit, you see that the earmark is actually going to the Concurrent Technology Corporation based in Jonestown, Pennsylvania. This is a leading earmark recipient in multiple appropriation bills over the years.

Currently in this year, I believe in the Intelligence authorization bill this same group, Concurrent Technology, received two other earmarks. Why isn't that in the earmark itself in what we were handed? We only learned that through the certification letter. Is the earmark to go to the Instrumented Critical Infrastructure Center or to Concurrent Technology? I would love to have that clarified here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I take it the sponsor of this earmark is not here to talk about it, but if I could ask the chairman where the earmark is supposed to go. Does the earmark go to this Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure or to Concurrent Technology?

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

I'm wondering, in the report that accompanied the bill, it mentioned that the earmark was to go to the Center for Instrumented Critical Infrastructure, but the certification letter says that it's going to go to that but the earmark should actually go to Concurrent Technology Corporation. Which is it?

Does that center currently exist?

We were told in this process early on by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee that a different process was needed, that the earmarks should be added later in conference and not now because the Appropriations Committee simply couldn't vet or scrub these earmarks well enough. I would submit that this is a perfect example of that.

We've had another example. One earmark was actually withdrawn, one on the list that I was to offer, because it hadn't been adequately scrubbed. I would submit that this one should be as well, when the chairman of the relevant subcommittee can't tell us if this

center even exists. We don't know if it even exists, if it's created by this earmark.

Concurrent Technology has been the recipient of millions upon millions of dollars over the years. The executives in Concurrent Technology contribute handsomely to Members of Congress. So it receives a lot of earmarks. It seems to be an earmark incubator of some type, an earmark that begets more earmarks.

And yet we have the report that comes with the bill that doesn't even mention Concurrent Technology. It just mentions this center as if it already existed. We don't even know if it does. We can't even find any information on it, and apparently we can't even get that information from the Appropriations Committee.

So I would submit that this is what this process is about. This is why we come to the floor. This is why we invite the sponsor of the earmark to defend the earmark. But I would say again, does this center exist? Do we even know if it exists? How do we know if it's a good center or a bad center? Is this Concurrent Technology, which already receives millions and millions of dollars in other bills, worthy of another earmark to create another center?

These are the questions that we have to ask.

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

Mr. Chairman, I guess I will finish off. I will call for a vote on this one, but I think it's important when Members are voting on this earmark and whether to retain it that we have to know what we know and know what we don't know.

We don't know if this center even exists. We are appropriating money for a center where the Appropriations Committee that has a responsibility to vet this earmark can't even tell us here if this even exists. We don't know that. We're voting on an earmark where in the report it says it goes to the center, but here in the certification letter it mentions Concurrent Technology, a private company. Which is it?

If we don't know these facts, we don't know what's going on here, I would say the thing to do is to vote this down, to actually vote for the amendment and wait until the Appropriations Committee actually has time to scrub and to vet these earmarks a little more carefully.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for this wonderful amendment.

I rise today out of a concern for what earmarks are doing to this body. Those of us on the Republican side understand very well the perils of unfettered earmarks. It's part of the reason we're squarely in the minority today. But there are greater concerns than which party is in the majority. I hope that each of us, Republicans and Democrats, would recognize this.

Proponents of earmarking defend the practice by noting that Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, and that earmarking is consistent with that responsibility. It is true that Congress has the power of the purse. But the contemporary practice of earmarking circumvents, rather than enhances, the careful execution of our responsibility as stewards of the public purse.

Take the Labor-HHS bill that will be coming up later today; it contains 1,300 earmarks. Are we to assume that each of these 1,300 has been properly vetted and scrubbed? No way. I suspect that, just as the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee noted a couple of weeks ago, there is no way to adequately screen these earmarks given the tight appropriations schedule. The question needs to be asked, why are we so bent on moving forward with 1,300 earmarks?

I should note that last year there were no House earmarks in the Labor-HHS bill. The world didn't come crashing to a halt. The year before there were no House earmarks in the Labor-H bill. The planets are still in order today.

Why are we so bent on moving forward when we can't adequately vet these earmarks?

Perhaps the most frequent justification for the contemporary practice of earmarking is that ``Members of Congress know their districts better than some faceless bureaucrat in Washington.'' Now, I'm not here to defend faceless bureaucrats. They waste a lot of money in my district, as well as others. Faceless bureaucrats in Federal agencies waste so much money that somebody needs to be constantly looking over their shoulder and providing oversight. That's why we're here. But let's face it, when we approve congressional earmarking for indoor rain forests in Iowa or teapot museums in North Carolina, we make the most spendthrift faceless bureaucrats look frugal.

Excess by Federal agencies does not excuse congressional excess. If Federal agencies don't follow the procedures requiring competitive bidding or other processes, then we should cut their funding and/or mandate that they change their practice. We shouldn't try to one-up them with equally suspect appropriations.

Just as an aside, we saw just a couple of weeks ago that the majority of this Chamber chose to deny funding for one particular earmark. Now, for the Record, it was my amendment to cut funding for the ``Perfect Christmas Tree Project.'' There was no Federal nexus, and I didn't think it was a wise use of Federal dollars. But it was no less worthy than hundreds of projects funded by the same legislation.

The distribution of earmarks is based on politics, not policy. Most appropriation bills award 60 percent of the earmarks to the majority party and 40 percent to the minority party. Is there a policy reason for this allocation that has reversed with every legislation? Are well- positioned Members who award themselves with more earmarks than rank- and-file Members more deserving? Are their districts more

needy? In some appropriation bills, each member of the committee is given an equal share. Are we to assume here that these districts have exactly the same needs?

The truth is, we can try all we want to to conjure up some noble pedigree for the contemporary practice of earmarking, but we are just drinking our own bath water if we think the public is buying it.

It seems that over the past few years we've tried to increase the number of earmarks enough so that the plaudits we hear from earmark recipients will drown out the voices of taxpayers who have had enough. It hasn't worked, thank goodness. For every group that directly benefits from earmarks, there are hundreds who see it as a transparent gimmick to assure our own reelection.

Mr. Chairman, our constituents deserve better. This institution deserves better than we're giving it. Let's return to the time-honored process of authorization, appropriation and oversight that has served us well for so long.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 17: Page 97, line 16, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $255,625,000)''.

Page 97, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $255,625,000)''.

Page 98, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 18: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 9: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 12: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 13: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That sponsor is Mr. Murtha?

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I have not.

I may have. I don't recall.

I believe I have.

I have not.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I inquire as to the time remaining.

May I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the Chairman.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned that he heard one Senator with sun spots overheard two other Senators talking.

Yes, I would.

No, he wasn't from Arizona. The gentleman can be excused. He has been very busy, and I am glad he has been reading earmark request letters. There have been a lot of them, so he has been tied up.

But what he missed, as the good gentleman from Indiana mentioned, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin from Illinois, not afflicted with sun spots, by the way, just yesterday said, ``It is time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.'' So I don't think that we are seeing things here. There is a move afoot.

Make no mistake, this is targeted at talk radios, where conservatives seem to have done a little better in the marketplace than the other side of the argument.

So forgive us for being skeptical that nothing is afoot. But when the majority leader in the Senate says it's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, I think we're right to be concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chair for recognition.

This amendment says, ``None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for W.A. Young & Sons Foundry, Greene County, Pennsylvania.''

The three-sentence certification letter for this project states that the purpose for this funding is to restore the machine shop at the foundry to its original likeness.

Once again, it's important to note that the certification letters that we get from the Appropriations Committee are not the request letters that Members give to the Appropriations Committee to request their earmark. So we really don't know all that much about what the earmarks are for, other than a three-sentence or a four-sentence certification letter. So I would have hoped to have had more information, but we were unable to get from the Appropriations Committee the actual request letters. So we are at a bit of a loss to find out what the earmark is really for, but we did our best to do a little research.

The W.A. Foundry is a factory that opened in 1900 and closed in 1965. The Web site that we found claimed that the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry is a prime example of America's industrial heritage. My question for the sponsor of the earmark would be: What factory in the United States would not be a prime example of America's industrial heritage? That's the problem that I think we have with a lot of these earmarks, particularly those that are to promote tourism or industry. How do you choose winners and losers in this game? How do we say, well, hey, this old factory is deserving of renovation, is deserving to draw tourists and is deserving of taxpayer dollars, while that one down the road is not? It seems to me a rather arbitrary decision based on one, perhaps, powerful Member of Congress who is able to slip in a provision to get an earmark. It doesn't seem to be very fair to other Members or to the taxpayers as a whole.

Furthermore, if any of our constituents who may want to take their families on a tour of America's industrial heritage, for any of them, for wanting to, they may have a hard time getting to see the W.A. Young & Sons Foundry. It's only open for the public 2 days a year, just 2 days a year. $150,000 to the taxpayer for 2 days a year open to the public. Other than that, you will have to get a private tour.

I simply don't understand why we are spending taxpayer money to promote tourism, why we choose one group over another, why we are picking winners and losers here. That's what I would ask the sponsor of the earmark if the sponsor of the earmark is here. I don't believe that he is, but I would be glad to hear some answers to these questions.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'm glad to learn that. That will make it much better. It's much better to have more of a colloquy.

I would have liked to have had a colloquy with the sponsor of the earmark, but the sponsor of the earmark is not here. It makes it difficult to know exactly what this is for.

Yes, I would.

Maybe that's safer.

What I would like to ask, for example, I mention that this foundry is only open 2 days a year. It has been open for private tours for quite a while for a number of years. There is no indication with this earmark, certainly because we don't get the request letter, we only get the certification letter, that it will be open for any more than that.

And I don't know about you, but it's a tough sell. I can tell you, I have five kids. It would be tough to say, Do you want to go to Disneyland or W.A. Young & Sons Foundry?

I can see why anybody would want an earmark to renovate something or to promote tourism in a particular area, but virtually every district in the country would like that as well. How do we decide this one is worthy and this one is not? Just because we have a Member who is a powerful member of the Appropriations Committee or not. We shouldn't be doing it this way.

The gentleman made a good point, that the President has his own earmarks. The administration does earmark funds, but it's typically with accounts that we've given them. We say, here's an amount of money and for this program. For example, there is the Save America's Treasures account that the President, or the administration through a competitive grant process, decides this site is worthy of historic preservation or worthy of receiving funds. What we're doing with earmarking frequently is circumventing that process and saying, I don't think they're going to do it right, so I'm just going to earmark my own project and get that funding for my own project. That's no way to do business. If we don't like the way the administration is doing something, that's what the oversight process is about, and we should go back in and stipulate and mandate.

I have mentioned many times, particularly with Homeland Security grants, there are projects in my own district that I think are a waste of Federal taxpayer dollars or not an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars, and I would like to go in. And I will, through this process, if I can, seek to strike some of the President's own requests. We should be doing that. But we shouldn't say because they do it and because they misuse Federal taxpayer dollars that we should as well. That's not what our power of the purse should be about.

So that's why we're here today, to say what is an appropriate use of Federal taxpayer dollars. Is it appropriate, in this case, and we can talk about what the Republicans did versus what the Democrats did. You won't find me defending what Republicans did in terms of ramping up earmarks. We went from some 1,400 to 14,000 over a decade, and it's a pox on our House. It's part of the reason I think we lost in November. I hope the minority, now majority learn a lesson from us.

I am glad to see the number of earmarks and the whole dollar value come down, but it should come down much lower. We not only need to change the level of spending, but the type of spending as well. And with earmarking, it was way out of control. It's still out of control with this legislation, in my view.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the Chairman.

This amendment would prohibit funding from going to the Columbus Firefighters Union, which is an AFL-CIO-affiliated union.

The certification letter for this project is quite vague. Remember that

these are not request letters, so we don't know a lot about these earmarks. These are only certifications that are made, usually three or four sentences long. The certification letter says that the earmark money is for the Columbus Firefighters Hall. The letter also states that the entity to receive this funding is the Columbus Firefighters Union. The earmark list accompanying the bill calls the project ``Firefighters Hall.''

According to the certification, the funding would be used to renovate and expand the Toledo & Ohio Railway Depot. Suffice to say, this information wasn't much to go on to learn about the earmark, so I had my staff e-mail the Appropriations Committee for further details, which they did provide.

The committee informed us that the Toledo and Ohio Central Railway station at 379 West Broad Street in Columbus, Ohio is the largest remaining 19th century railroad palace in central Ohio. Today it serves as local headquarters for the Volunteers of America, a national organization with a variety of charitable and service programs.

The committee also stated that the depot has been adapted to serve the modern needs of the Volunteers of America, while also preserving much of the 100-year-old architecture. The decorative ``grand lobby'' may be rented for parties, receptions and meetings.

It's a little unclear whether this is to renovate an old building. It seems to me there are already tenants in the building. And one of the tenants in the building I believe will be, or the entity that is receiving the earmark to renovate is the AFL-CIO-affiliated Firefighters Union Local 67.

Again, this is a question of there are a lot of firefighters halls around the country, there are a lot of buildings that need to be renovated. We give the administration money under programs to allocate on a competitive basis to do historic preservation. This, seems to me, is circumventing that process again. And again, why is it proper to say that this one is worthy of funding and this one isn't?

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

If the gentlewoman will respond, I have a question. The earmark states that it is for Firefighter's Hall in Columbus, but the certification letter says the money is to go to the firefighters' union. Why does the union get the money?

Is there another firefighters' museum in Columbus?

Let me just say, again, the gentlewoman mentioned that we have this program for historic preservation, the Saving America's Treasures, and that it is tough to get on the list for that. As I understand it, grants are given out and those grants are announced in late summer. If you receive one of those grants, then you are named an historic site or an official recipient. You can also make a contribution. If you are a local entity looking to have your own facility designated, you can make a contribution to Save America's Treasures and earmark that for the project that you want it to go to. There are other ways to receive recognition.

It just seems to me that it would be more appropriate for the local entities to bear responsibility for this and not the Federal Government.

That is understood. There are a lot of State and local governments everywhere, I would submit, that would like to have this kind of participation. But we simply can't do it. We simply cannot fund every project out there. So it seems to me that if we are going to have a project, or we are going to have an account that we set up with the Federal agency, we allow that to take its course.

If we don't like the way it is run, it is our obligation as Members of Congress to stipulate that it should be done differently. But we shouldn't go in and circumvent that process and say, all right, I am going to earmark these projects because I fear that they might not receive designation or they might not be chosen by this Federal agency. If we don't like how that is set up, let's change that process. But let's not move in, as Members of Congress, and designate specific funds.

I have a lot of respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio and count her as a friend. I am not questioning anything here but the wisdom of using Federal taxpayer money to do this type of thing.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding in the bill from going to the Philadelphia Art Museum for their exterior facade work. The Philadelphia Art Museum is receiving $100,000 in taxpayer funds in this bill.

The certification letter submitted to the Appropriations Committee in this project is a little vague again. It simply states that the money is to be used for a comprehensive exterior renovation and preservation project of the main building historic facade. I should note again the certification letters that we get as Members tell us a lot less than the actual request letters do. That certainly is the case here.

When my staff looked at the museum Web site, it is clear that the museum has plans for expansion by creating a ``skylit galleria, a spacious gallery extending along Pennsylvania Avenue in Philadelphia.''

The skylit galleria would be some 35 feet high, 200 feet long, and join the lobby and new cafe. The Web site says that with its terrazzo floor and tilted corbelled wall, this new space connects the old building to the new extension along the length of the preexisting north exterior facade.

I understand the main building is historic. But the question is, if the certification letter says it is for the historic facade and you are talking about flooring and other things, it seems to me that the money is going to the new extension.

Again, I would simply make the same point here that I have made before. There are a lot of worthy projects. Certainly renovation and historic preservation is a good thing and a lot of good people contribute their own money to it, as they should. But the question is, should Federal taxpayer dollars be used in this way, particularly given the financial situation we are in as a Federal Government.

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

If the gentleman would explain, I am still a little confused. The earmark states it is for Philadelphia Art Museum exterior facade, but then we are talking about an extension or expansion as well. Is this for the historic facade or for an expansion?

So not to the new expansion.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any of the funds in the bill from going to the Payne Art Gallery at Moravian College at Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The certification letter submitted by the Member sponsoring the project stated the money would go to the restoration and preservation of the Payne Art Gallery at the college. The funding would be used for exterior restoration, rehabilitation, and conservation of Payne Gallery.

Payne Art Gallery is a small art gallery at a college. The college underwent a renovation in 2001 to achieve Smithsonian exhibit standards. It currently hosts about five to six exhibits a year. This small art gallery is to receive $150,000 in Federal funding from the U.S. taxpayer.

Again, I would simply ask, there are a lot of small colleges around the country, hundreds of them, thousands of them. Many have art galleries. Where do we say this is worthy and this is not? Why are we using U.S. Federal taxpayer dollars for this purpose when we are in the fix that we are in financially?

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

Mr. Chairman, I will simply make the point, this sounds like a great gallery, a lot of history, certainly something that tourism and other things can pay for, that can carry its own load locally. Why do we need the Federal Government to be involved, that is my question.

Given the priorities and the situation we are in with the Federal Government, the last time I checked we were some $8 trillion in debt, why are we doing this? Where does it end? When do we say enough is enough?

We can't afford to fund projects like this around the country that have a local program that can support it. We simply can't go on doing this. That is the point that I would like to make.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent funding from going to the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission in Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania. This is one of the most expensive earmarks in the bill. The commission is to receive an earmark of $1.2 million. The Web site for this commission states that the southwestern region of Pennsylvania was hard hit when a lot of manufacturing jobs left the region. The Web site also states that it was a ``tough transition for hundreds of steelworkers, coal miners, railroaders and other workers who now find themselves without a job.'' I certainly, and any Member in this body, can sympathize with in their own district.

But the Web site goes on to say that ``An idea emerged that the very industries that were struggling in the 1980's had transformed America once before. Could the proud history of southwestern Pennsylvania once again lead America through the next economic transition? With that, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission was born.''

A bill creating the Southwestern Pennsylvania Industrial Heritage Route, or Path to Progress National Heritage Area, was approved in Congress in 1988. The heritage area is managed by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. If this is confusing to listeners, it is to all of us.

The Commission's Web site states that the law created the new heritage area to ``make it possible for millions of Federal dollars to flow into southwestern Pennsylvania.'' No doubt.

All of these funds are to be managed by the Commission.

The Commission's Web site states the Commission has ``created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, and new businesses.'' No doubt.

The site goes on to explain that the committee ``spent money, borrowed money, loaned money, earned money, granted money, and accepted money.'' Nobody doubts that either.

The Web site explains that the Commission legislative mandate was renewed by Congress and it was to begin transferring its responsibilities to a public foundation.

I quote, ``several entities were created by the commission to achieve this--the Allegheny Heritage Development Corporation which then evolved in the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation and the Progress Fund, which would serve as a Community Development Financial Institution, providing gap and equity financing to an increasing number of tourism-oriented businesses.''

I should note that I have added language in this amendment to prevent Federal funding from going to the other two nonprofit entities that were created by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission.

My point in offering this amendment is to highlight the concept of earmark incubators, or entities created by Members of Congress through the legislative process that exist for the sole purpose of receiving more earmarks.

In this case, the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission seems to be just that, an earmark incubator. It has spawned at least two other nonprofit entities, each with the sole purpose of fostering economic growth and tourism development in southwestern Pennsylvania with Federal taxpayer dollars.

It is no surprise that the CEO of the Westsylvania Heritage Corporation is also the executive director of the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission. He is also a former Interior Department employee of 32 years.

Keeping track of all these entities that have been created based on this one national heritage area almost boggles the mind. The point of this amendment is to prevent funding from going to one entity, you have to go after all three.

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

How much time is remaining?

I thank the chairman.

If the gentleman will indulge me, I am still confused, maybe even further now. Looking at the list, it says here, Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Preservation Commission, $1.2 million, and the sponsor is Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania. Who is the sponsor?

Thank you.

Reclaiming my time, I don't doubt that it was funded in the previous Congress. The question is with economic development. It is said that this helps promote tourism. It helps development. No doubt. You cannot spend money without creating economic activity by its very nature. But if we take economic development as the criteria, what project anywhere in the country is not worthy of that? And why is this project and all of these entities created, and I quote again from their own Web site. The commission Web site says: ``This organization created organizations, corporations, alliances, confederations, authorities, commissions, councils, new businesses,'' many of which are also eligible for earmark funding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a real test here. We all campaign every 2 years, and we put out campaign literature. We go speak at town halls and other events. And I would venture to guess that not one person in this body said, Reelect me because we need to spend more on Interior appropriations. We need to spend more. We need to spend 4 percent more than we did last year. I am going to go back to Washington and spend $1.2 billion more than we did last year.

I venture that nobody said that. Virtually everybody said we need to rein in spending. We need to promote fiscal responsibility.

I am the first to concede we didn't do a good job of it over here. For the past several years we have grown government far too big. That is part of the reason we are now in the minority. But the majority comes now and says, don't lecture us, we are going to increase that spending.

This bill spends $1.2 billion more than last year. Last year spent too much. This year spends too much too much again.

So, please, we know we did wrong. That is why we are in the minority. But when you are in the majority now, let's exercise some fiscal discipline. There are plenty of areas that can receive cuts. We have outlined several of them over the past several hours with amendments.

Museum funding, part of the reason the gentleman from New Mexico mentioned that we have a backlog at the National Parks, he is right. But yet in the authorizing committee, we have created several more National Heritage Areas and earmarked a lot more money for them. There are earmarks in this bill for National Heritage Areas. That is money that will come out of the National Parks budget. They will tell you if you spend money here on this new area, this National Heritage Area, you can't spend money maintaining the parks that we already have. Many of us have fought to stop that. We have said don't keep creating these National Heritage Areas. Yet with the new majority, we are creating them at a faster rate than we ever have.

I would say, let's promote fiscal discipline. Let's pass this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would just say, I have three amendments that have not been voted on yet, so I invite the gentleman to support them.