House Proceeding 07-09-09 on Jul 9th, 2009 :: 2:25:15 to 2:27:00
Total video length: 2 hours 32 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Views:83 Duration: 0:01:45 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

2:25:11 to 2:25:31( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: international exchanges and so i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: the gentlelady mentioned fy-08, mentiod there were some 36 listed. only 24 of those 36 were

2:25:15 to 2:27:00( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Jeff Flake

2:25:32 to 2:25:52( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: actually eligible for funding. half of those eligible for funding did receive the funding which took over half of the funding that was eligible to be disbursed. so there is quite an uncanny alignment between the -- what is put out there and what is actually then awarded.

2:25:53 to 2:26:15( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: my question is, if -- with the rest of our appropriations this year, we are -- as we are told simply giving the agencies a list of recommendations, or a look-see, why is it that the so-called hard earmarks in other bills require certification letter, require ansparency and other things,

2:26:16 to 2:26:36( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: and the soft earmarks here, which act pretty much the same way, require no such disclosure or no such transparency? that's my concern here. it's long been the concern of many with these soft earmarks. the agencies have told us their hands are sometimes too much tied by the soft earmarks.

2:26:37 to 2:26:57( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: they have programs and then members of congress will say, oh, yes, we're appropriating money, but it needs to be spent here, here, and here. we all know the agency knows who butters their bread, who appropriates their money, and they're inclined, particularly when it's a case of a powerful member, to go along with the

2:26:58 to 2:27:00( Edit History Discussion )

Jeff Flake: recommendations made and so that's a question i have.