Jeff Flake: “This bill, like previous years' bills making appropriations for the State Department and for foreign operations, doesn't…”

“This bill, like previous years' bills making appropriations for the State Department and for foreign operations, doesn't include earmarks in the traditional sense. In other words, it doesn't direct agencies to fund specific programs for parochial interests. However, the report accompanying the bill makes reference to several nongovernmental organizations by name. I think it is most accurate to refer to these as ``soft earmarks.'' Scattered throughout the report is language which reads as follows: ``The committee is aware of the work of,'' and you can insert your favorite organization here, ``and encourages USAID to consider supporting such work in fiscal year 2008.'' I would suppose that, given the agencies we are funding, some of these NGOs are based overseas or are international organizations, and I have no doubt that many of them are doing good work. But why are they any more worthy than the hundreds of other organizations that are not named? My amendment does not strike funding for any NGO. Rather, it simply would remove any funding preference for any of the organizations that are listed in the bill over organizations that are not listed in the bill. This amendment simply would prevent funding from going to any of these organizations outside of a competitive bidding process.”