Video archive of the US Congress

House Proceeding 07-23-09 on Jul 23rd, 2009 :: 3:50:45 to 3:57:40
Total video length: 4 hours 26 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:150 Duration: 0:06:55 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

Jeff Flake

3:50:41 to 3:51:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: show where those have gone, you will see the earmarks have been spread much more widely, much more evenly among all 5 and the territories. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. he makes the point exactly, we shouldn't appropriate this money at all. this money should stay in the hands of small business before

Jeff Flake

3:50:45 to 3:57:40( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Flake

Jeff Flake

3:51:02 to 3:51:23( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: it's taxed and let them do with it as they will. cut payroll tax, leave it with them. don't take it and distribute it by mea of congressional earmark or federal bureaucrat fiat. don't spend it that way. if we don't like the way they do it, let's not create a parallel

Jeff Flake

3:51:24 to 3:51:44( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: program that is just inequitable. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it and the amendment is not combreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to rule -- clause 6, rule 18, further proceedingon the amendment

Jeff Flake

3:51:45 to 3:52:05( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. mr. flake: final amendment, number 11. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. print in house report 111-219 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the air: the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake and a member opposed each will control five

Jeff Flake

3:52:06 to 3:52:26( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would remove $500,000 in funding for the reconstruction of red mountain driveb in wisconsin. >> the chair: who claims time in opposition? mr. obey: i claim the time in opposition and reserve. the chair: the gentleman

Jeff Flake

3:52:27 to 3:52:47( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: reserves. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from wisconsin has the right to close. mr. flake: doesn't the sponsor of the amendment have the right to close? the chair: a member of the appropriations committee is in opposition to an amendment has the right to close.

Jeff Flake

3:52:48 to 3:53:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: mr. flake: ok. i should have known. i should have known. . mr. flake: according to the sponsor of the earmark, funds would go for an addition -- for additional turn lane signals and a salk on rib mountain drive.

Jeff Flake

3:53:09 to 3:53:30( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: the certification letter for the earmark refers to a particular stretch of the road as a primary roadway in a commercial district and says the project will enhance safety and efficiency. i have no doubt it will do this. i have no doubt. but my understanding is that this funding for this program comes from -- or that the state

Jeff Flake

3:53:31 to 3:53:53( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: of wisconsin has a program where they grant funding for programs like this, or projects ke this on priority basis. a-- apparently the state of wisconsin didn't see this as a priority or they would have funded it osm perhaps they did, but realizing there was a powerful member here in the congress, they didn't have to, because the federal taxpayer could pick up the tab.

Jeff Flake

3:53:54 to 3:54:14( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: so here again, why are we paying for a roadway that doesn't serve an interstate purpose? this is not part of the interstate highway system. again, here, it's a parochial interest, i understand that, the member will advocate fiercely for it and for his right to get that earmark and certainly the member, my good

Jeff Flake

3:54:15 to 3:54:36( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: friend from wisconsin, is in a position to do that. but the question is why? why continue with a program like this let me show the chart again. here's the appropriations chart for this year. we have all legislation we've considered so far. 24 members of the house -- 24% of the members of the house,

Jeff Flake

3:54:37 to 3:54:57( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: just shy of 24% of the members of the house, which includes the appropriators, which make up 13% to 14%, and then powerful leadership members and ranking minority members and chairmen of committees, get a low of 46% in this bill and high of 70% in the financial

Jeff Flake

3:54:58 to 3:55:19( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: services bill. this seems to be a pattern. it's a pattern that stretches beyond, i think, last year it was similar spoils here. and i understand that. members, when they're here longer, apparently they understand their districts better than members who haven't been here as lon but it begs the question, why

Jeff Flake

3:55:20 to 3:55:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: do we continue to do this i appreciate it when the chairman said, earmarks grew under republican rule. they did. it will haunt us forever, and should. but the chairman said when he was chairman of the appropriations committee prior to republicans taking over in

Jeff Flake

3:55:41 to 3:56:01( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: 1984, there were no earmarks in the h.h.s. bill. tomorrow we consider that bill, i think there are well over 1,000 earmarks in that bill. there are well over 1,000 earmarks in the defense bill we'll consider later next week. just because republicans ramped it up doesn't mean the democrats have to continue it this way.

Jeff Flake

3:56:02 to 3:56:24( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: some will make the case we've cut down the number and dollar value. that's a good thing. but when you go from zero, and when we say with pride, there were no earmarks when chaired the committee before, now there are only 1,000 and we should feel good about that, there's something wrong with this picture. again, it's not just the money in the earmarks. it's not just that we are

Jeff Flake

3:56:25 to 3:56:46( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: spending money on a local transportation project that should be funded locally. but it's when you get earmarks in a bill and you include 1,000 of them, you gather support for a bill that in this case, today, this bill increases overall spending 13%, i believe, over last year's bill. 13%.

Jeff Flake

3:56:47 to 3:57:08( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: in a year wh our deficit will approach $2 trillion, we're here saying, that's ok, and we'll have a big vote on this bill, republicans and democrats, my guess, and largely because there are so many earmarks in the bill, people think, i've got a little piece of it, so i'll vote for the broader bill.

Jeff Flake

3:57:09 to 3:57:29( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: that's what has driven up spending under republicans and democrats alike. when we lard up the bills with earmarks and pet projects we grease the skids for them to pass when we should stand up and say, we cannot sustain this level of spending. again, it's not just a democrat thing or republican thing this body as a whole is guilty of it.

Jeff Flake

3:57:30 to 3:57:40( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: earmarks are a large part of that. we have to recognize that. you can cloak it in whatever language you want to about representing my constituents, but every constituent is out

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid