[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Page H2382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            NO EARMARKS IN HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the House 
Appropriations Committee floated a trial balloon in some of the 
newspapers that cover Congress. They indicated that they might allow 
earmarks into this year's appropriation bill for the Department of 
Homeland Security.
  Not surprisingly, the announcement has elicited little reaction 
outside the Beltway where Americans pay little attention to the arcane 
ins and outs of congressional appropriation bills.
  The same cannot be said for K Street where lobbyists can barely 
contain their glee at the prospect of another appropriations bill to 
fill with earmarks. By opening up the door to earmarks in the homeland 
security appropriations bill, we are opening a Pandora's box of 
government waste, pork-barrel spending, and weakened homeland security.
  In the 2 years since its inception, the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill has been free of earmarks. House leaders have 
recognized that something as important as the bill funding national 
security agencies ought to be absent of earmarks.

                              {time}  2230

  I am puzzled as to why we now suddenly believe that earmarking 
homeland security funds is an acceptable practice. There are a number 
of reasons why earmarks would corrupt the homeland security 
appropriations process, but unquestionably the most serious is that it 
would jeopardize our national security.
  A few months ago defense analysts complained, the news that earmarks 
in the defense appropriations bill had put the lives of our troops at 
risk. They argue that congressional earmarks had drained the pot of 
available money for supplies like body armor or Humvee armor for troops 
in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can be sure that earmarking homeland 
security funds will have the same effect.
  The Congress created the Department of Homeland Security to assess 
domestic threats to our country and address them. Now, after only 2 
years of funding the department, Congress believes it knows how best to 
allocate these funds. Congressional oversight of this department is 
vital and that is why congressional earmarking is so dangerous.
  Homeland security earmarks are also sure to slip down the pork barrel 
slope so many other appropriations bills have gone down. It will not be 
long before Members are inserting earmarks for projects with only a 
modest relevance to homeland security. A first responders hall of fame 
project, for example, or a port security museum. The possibilities are 
as endless as appropriators' imaginations.
  Anyone who believes that such a scenario is a stretch needs only to 
give a cursory look at the more than 4,000 earmarks in this year's 
transportation bill. Members will be hard pressed to vote against a 
bill intended to protect our national security even if it is over 
budget or stuffed with pork. For that reason, lobbyists will view it as 
a must-pass vehicle for earmarks.
  Adding earmarks to the homeland security appropriations bill is 
clearly bad policy, but I also believe that for Republicans it is bad 
politics as well. The earmarking process was abused by the Democrats, 
but I am sad to say that during Republican control of Congress we have 
made it much worse. It is no wonder that the Republican Party, the 
party of fiscal constraint since the New Deal, has seen public trust in 
its ability to balance the books evaporate.
  For the most part, Americans no longer believe that Republicans are 
more fiscally prudent than Democrats. I cannot say that I blame them. 
Every Republican who values serving in the majority should be troubled 
by this trend.
  Further, I worry that by opening up the homeland security bill to 
earmarks, we would let public distrust of our handling of fiscal issues 
spill over into national security. While it may be hard to tell the 
difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending, there is 
still a very real difference when it comes to national security. It 
would be a shame to let our growing appetite for earmarks jeopardize 
our ability to lead on national security.
  Just how far Republicans have strayed for limited government 
orthodoxy was apparent recently when a current Member of this body ran 
for reelection a decade after he had first been in this body. He told 
of being approached by legions of lobbyists and local officials, each 
wanting to know how he would proceed to help them get earmarks for 
local projects. But I am a Republican, was his response. We know, was 
their retort.
  What a sad commentary this is on our party.
  I was elected to Congress with aspirations higher than groveling from 
crumbs that fall from appropriators' tables. I suspect that this is the 
case with each of my colleagues. Yet, we are quickly approaching a 
point where that would simply be an apt description of our jobs.
  Madam Speaker, it is time to reverse course. To do so, we need to 
shoot down this trial balloon. The last thing we need to do is open up 
the $32 billion fund, the Homeland Security bill to pork barrel 
spending.

                          ____________________