[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 12, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6268-H6317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2638.
{time} 1459
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Frank of Massachusetts in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the
first time.
The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of
our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last
number of months.
Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring
testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside
experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have
been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported
by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings.
I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural
chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant
contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong,
bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department,
and I have endeavored to continue on that path.
I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member
of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his
expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his
commitment to public service and to this institution.
And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for
and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both
majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her
mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components
has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of
Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the
majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on
the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our
subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these
individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country.
Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in
discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent,
above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an
emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called ``emergency''
funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily
been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains
$2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President
Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding
homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than
justify this level of funding.
This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to
address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new
emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems.
Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States
and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity
but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be
dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a
faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local
communities. And this bill honors that partnership.
Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well
spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting,
procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal
2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs
and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or
level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a
total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits
detailed expenditure plans.
And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside
reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long-
term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively.
For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of
Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the
Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to
ensure that investments are well targeted.
The funding increases provided in this bill address the security
vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/
11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security
actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act.
Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849
million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo
security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill.
And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior
to loading onto passenger aircraft.
Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more
than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million,
$190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is
provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE
Ports Act.
Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million,
$100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response
System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17 million more than 2007.
State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants
are funded at $950 million; that is $50 million more than 2007. Urban
area security grants are funded at $800 million, $30 million more than
the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable communication grants are
funded in total at $100 million, in contrast to no funding provided in
2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, $138 million more than
2007. And FEMA management and administration is funded at $685 million,
$150 million more than 2007.
Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the
bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts
and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently
submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never
competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds
be awarded through full and open competitive processes except
[[Page H6269]]
when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute.
This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there
are no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill.
In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability
that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities
throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated
immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some
number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying
and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify
every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their
release from prison.
These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for
committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all
too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information
about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the
first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This
bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen.
The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of
$1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it
plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders.
For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an
analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total
cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and
other factors.
We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support
of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I
want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on
border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the
Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision
simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult
affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts
minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the
Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is
appropriate.
We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent
the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply
with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition,
the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem
that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the
southwest border.
Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers,
despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they
don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law
enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on
to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP
officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal
2008.
The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal
data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of
the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds
funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections
are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in
hand.
In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman.
First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and
local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the
Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and
contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility
at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits
an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long
overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape,
and involuntary servitude.
This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of
lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On
the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by
colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus.
This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an
explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely
unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman
on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of
this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's
continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to
state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the
concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as
possible.
I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific
items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility.
The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is
$36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and
amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't
even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been
added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion
in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month.
If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent
increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would
give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that
recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the
Department.
The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and
I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline,
even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more
government do not equal more security.
Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget
to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over
current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort.
And when I use the term ``responsible,'' Mr. Chairman, I am also
stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out
legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to
contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them,
at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate
deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I
support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be
very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded.
{time} 1515
We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay,
assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails.
Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to
determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien
or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do
that. So I don't know what will be the result of this mandate. It is
unfunded, and it is going to be very difficult to put in practice. The
Department already surveys routinely the most probable jails where the
most probable criminal aliens are being held anyway.
Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to
carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill
presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other
sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension
program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the
streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than
those incarcerated in the jails.
These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include
tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks,
preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive
national security technology, and taking down employers who are
exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse.
From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order
to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which
never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE
should
[[Page H6270]]
refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal aliens at
the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who are raping
and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is potentially very
dangerous.
There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am
concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the
Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic
implementation of this policy as we move forward.
I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with
securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's
borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To
address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated
for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill
contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and
other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department
performs certain actions.
At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure
requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added
together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede
installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing
the border will be greatly deterred.
While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning
requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our
borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to
ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget.
There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution
of the Department's border security mission.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the
cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002,
and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons,
reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that
time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we
put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline
in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to
hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in
research and technology were largely ignored.
By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA
was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better,
cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport,
x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more
expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies
of airports.
The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that
TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply
adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous
solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore
the 45,000 screener cap later today.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations
we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended
to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the
Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and
duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these
grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are
transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk
reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended
to be.
Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this
bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing
committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and
administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government
expects for the grants that we do make.
Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our
vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly
when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first
responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We
should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put
billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to
be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline?
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to
do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations
that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the
Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and
continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.
I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and
the Senate as the bill moves forward.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
chairman of the subcommittee to inquire about the language in the
report accompanying this bill relating to funding for the capability
replacement laboratory that is being built as part of the Pacific
Northwest Laboratory complex in the 300 Area at Hanford. This lab is
being constructed in order to replace facilities that are being
demolished as a result of the environmental cleanup program managed by
the Department of Energy. The existing lab provides critical science
and technology capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security,
including radiation detection and analysis, information, analytics and
testing, evaluation and certification capabilities.
To maintain these capabilities, DHS, along with two agencies within
DOE, has entered into a memorandum of understanding to share the cost
for replacing this laboratory complex.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to point out that DHS provided approximately $2.25
million in prior years for conceptual design of this project. In
addition, the FY07 Homeland Security appropriation bill provided $2
million for the continued design and initial construction of this
facility. And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his help last
year. However, no funds were included in the FY08 budget request from
DHS. The MOU calls for $25 million to be contributed by DHS to begin
construction. If this funding is not included, the project will likely
be delayed into future years, causing both DHS and DOE to lose
important laboratory capabilities they need to keep our country safe.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for those important points. It is my
understanding that there is language in the report to accompany the
bill addressing the funding commitment made by DHS in the MOU.
I would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for clarification.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. Language in
the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill
the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed
last November.
Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman for his response, and I ask him to
continue to work with me and my colleague from Washington to ensure
that this obligation is fulfilled by DHS.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to work with you and
Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction
provided in the report.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for yielding. I thank the
gentleman, and I thank the Chair as well, and look forward to working
with both of you in this regard.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very
hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the gentleman from
Kentucky, Ranking Member Rogers, for yielding time and for the
leadership he and Chairman Price have given this committee. It has been
a pleasure to serve.
I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance to me, the
infrastructure protection and our energy delivery system protection.
[[Page H6271]]
This bill has $532 million to protect the infrastructure of this
country. Our transportation system has been a very high focus because
that is how we were attacked, the use of our transportation system. But
in my view, the vulnerability of America is very much its
infrastructure on energy. We lack oil refineries and cannot afford to
have any refineries offline from a terrorist attack. We now import 13
percent of our gasoline from foreign countries and often have to bid
for it when it's in the ship.
Our natural gas system is struggling to furnish adequate and
affordable natural gas for us to heat our homes and run our businesses
because we are using huge amounts of it now to generate electricity. We
are using large amounts of it now to make ethanol because it is a fuel.
Ninety-six percent of all the new ethanol plants use natural gas.
We are finding that natural gas is the mother's milk of this country,
and any disruption in our pipeline system, because we are not able to
produce adequate amounts of natural gas without any disruption in the
current delivery system.
Our electric grid, in my view, we were short on generating capacity;
that has been beefed up because we have built a lot of natural gas
electric generators. But we have not adequately invested, or in some
cases have not been able to build the grid that connects our country.
We need to have all of our country criss-crossed with a stronger grid,
so that if any portion of it goes down, another portion, we can come in
the back door with electricity.
Our dependence on electricity and our use of electricity is growing
every day. And in my view, with wind and solar slowly coming online,
those are often in areas that we don't have a good hookup to the grid,
and we need to build transmission lines to bring that capacity to the
system.
I believe the Department of Homeland Security must be more
stringently identified as a priority within the Department of Homeland
Security. I have said throughout the process of marking up this bill
that the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, our pipeline system and
our refinery system need to be a higher priority. I am thankful for the
language that was accepted in this bill to require the Department of
Homeland Security, with input from the Department of Energy, to provide
a report on the most critical capacity limit segments of the North
American electricity transmission and distribution network. And we
probably ought to be doing the same for all of our other energy
infrastructures.
It is critical that we identify these segments and also identify if
disruption of any of these segments would generate a cascading affect
that could cripple the economy of our country. It is vital that we
protect our energy infrastructure.
I want to thank Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price for their dedication on this
bill and their willingness to work with me on what I believe are the
vulnerabilities that need to be beefed up to make sure this country has
the energy it needs.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our
colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would
like to commend Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and their
wonderful staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
The bill provides adequate funding for programs that are crucial to
the Nation's security, many of which the President chose to underfund
or eliminate in his request.
Although we have not suffered a terrorist attack since the morning of
9/11, the threat remains real. Therefore, it is crucial that we provide
sufficient resources to support those who represent our first line of
defense.
I am pleased that the bill acknowledges this reality and restores
proposed cuts to grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical
Response System and the SAFER program, which helps our struggling local
fire departments fulfill ever-increasing homeland security missions.
{time} 1530
I know that my own City of New York is making good use of all of
these grants, including those provided to the Urban Areas Security
Initiative grant program.
Beyond helping our States and municipalities, I would also like to
express my support for the way the committee handles the balance
between the different demands in the different departments and their
ongoing missions. These critical missions, such as stopping the flow of
illegal drugs and approving visas, have not gone away since 9/11. This
bill properly recognizes this reality and provides support.
Finally, I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member chose to
address issues related to the treatment and deportation of immigrants.
As we work to secure our borders, it is important that we never lose
touch with America's enduring spirit as a nation that stands ready to
welcome all who come in search of a better life.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe the bill does a good job of
providing adequate funds for programs crucial to the security of the
homeland and strengthens the partnership between the Federal, State and
local governments and all the local communities. I truly believe it
includes all the ingredients necessary for success.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I would ask
for their vote.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members
of our subcommittee.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking
Member Rogers for the hard work that they have done on this Homeland
Security bill. What we are trying to do is secure our Nation with our
Homeland Security bill, and this goes a long way to doing that. But I
have some concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them.
We have got to secure our Nation, and it is of primary importance to
this country that we secure this Nation at every level. We have been
working diligently and hard to do that. We have tried to use an open
process in the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and that is, we lay all
our cards on the table in our appropriations bill. We have historically
let all the spending on homeland security be laid out before this House
so that the daylight and reality of how we are spending the American
people's money is in the bill.
I am concerned, and I wish to express the concern that in the
appropriations process this year there is a lot that is going to be
done in the dark. In this particular bill, it is a very small item as
compared to what is coming down the road at us, but there is $16
million for bridges which we won't know exactly how that is going to be
spent for this House to examine it, but it will be ``air dropped'' in
in the conference committee. That is an indicator of what we are
looking at as we deal with Member-initiated spending with the nickname
of ``earmarks'' in the future.
At present, the plan is to set aside the money but not tell us how to
spend it, and, oh, by the way vote for it. But I think in the last
election the American people told us that they wanted sunlight on this
process. They wanted to be able to see how we spend our money,
including they wanted our names put on the things that were
individually requested. In fact, the Republican House passed such a
rule, to put the names on every earmark.
Yet we see in a very small part in this bill, and much expanded in
the bills to follow, that there is going to be no sunshine on this
process. In fact, it is going to be inside closed doors in the
conference committee where there is really not a whole lot this House
can do about it.
With increased nonemergency spending of $81.4 billion, these are
issues that American people want to know about it. They want their
elected Representatives to take a look at it and be able to figure out
how the money is being spent. We debated this process the last session
of Congress. We made it important to us as individual Members. We
talked about it and discussed it and voted on it.
Now, all of a sudden, we have a process that has gone behind closed
doors in secrecy, and as we vote these things
[[Page H6272]]
out, as Members of Congress we are voting a bill which has a fund set-
aside which we are not told how that fund is going to be spent. We are
told it could be published over the break. This is inexcusable.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of this committee and want to
commend the style of this committee. I don't think any committee has
had more hearings with more substantive issues than this Committee on
Appropriations for security.
In fact, this bill appropriates a record amount of spending, $36.3
billion. What we tried to do in the committee, and I want to commend
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price, was starting out asking what are the risk
issues that we really need to face in the Nation. This whole emphasis
has been essentially an antiterrorism effort, when, in reality, in
creating this huge, huge bureaucracy and moving the Department of
Agriculture and everybody else into it, what we have found from a lot
of experts is that you really have to deal with issues such as the
first responders would be the same for a terrorist activity as they
would be for a natural disaster, and that we really have to base our
decisions on risk-based management.
It was no more clear than in a place that we are just sort of
throwing money at, which is the border between Mexico and the United
States. In testimony, we found that there are more terrorist
incidents--in fact, there have been none on the Mexican-U.S. border,
but there have been several on the U.S.-Canadian border where we have
very little security whatsoever. So if you were acting just on risk
management, you would put more assets on the Canadian border than on
the Mexican border. But the emphasis here isn't about homeland
security; it is more about immigration.
I think hearing all the things put together, this is a really good
bill.
One of the things Mr. Rogers mentioned that I would like to just
disagree with, all of our local law enforcement say that the biggest
problem they are having is they arrest people who don't have papers and
then they release them because nobody from INS will come around and
check it out. Everybody on the committee was concerned about the fact
that there wasn't enough effort put into what they call ``jail
checks,'' and this committee bill addresses that.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Members, and point out that
this is not just a spending bill, because they cut a lot of things and
they put conditions on spending.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our
committee.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for putting together a
bill that meets the security needs of this country. As a former member
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I respect the enormous task the
subcommittee has in providing oversight to a department that is still
finding its way.
Of particular concern to me are the Department's Infrastructure
Protection analysis centers, which provide basic analytic services to
the Department of Homeland Security. PSAC, the Protective Security
Analysis Center, is one such tool. PSAC is a collaborative effort
between a number of Department of Energy national labs and industry
partners which exist to collect, analyze and share infrastructure risk
information within DHS, as well as with the communities in which the
infrastructure is located.
PSAC integrates infrastructure information, risk analysis and data
collection through assessment tools to support the process of risk-
based decision-making. PSAC also hosts a number of DHS systems
supporting chemical facility security and bombing prevention, as well
as the National Asset Database, all of which are essential to
accomplishing the DHS mission.
It is also important to note that DHS has made a $52 million
investment in PSAC over the past 4 years to develop these capabilities
and expertise. Without continued support, this significant investment
would be lost and DHS would be left with numerous unfunded mission
requirements. It is my understanding the committee has approved $78.9
million for identification and analysis.
Chairman Price, I ask if you will work with me, please, to ensure
that the Department of Homeland Security provides adequate funding for
these analysis centers, particularly the PSAC, in FY 08.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest
in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC.
As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the
Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out
identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the
analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to
model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to
working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities
are adequately funded in our bill.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full
Appropriations Committee.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Homeland
Security appropriations bill. For too long, this Congress has failed to
fund our critical homeland security priorities. I am pleased, however,
that this bill today takes significant steps towards addressing these
issues.
As a Member who represents the Port of Oakland, I want to just
mention port security, which has been long neglected by the Bush
administration. In this bill, we make an important commitment to
provide at the authorized level $400 million in port security grants,
which is $190 million over the President's request.
To protect critical transit infrastructure, this bill provides $400
million in grants, which is $225 million over the President's request.
On the issue of ensuring that first responders are able to
communicate between themselves, this bill provides $50 million for
essential interoperable communications.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress is making good on its promise to provide
a clear and new and realistic direction on homeland security. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing
committee for homeland security in the House.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2008. I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers
for including a solid increase for funding for detection canine teams
used by DHS. The bill includes an increase of $17.3 million that will
add more canine teams for air cargo inspections. The bill also includes
funding for 1,506 canine teams for CBP, which represents an increase of
272 teams over last year's level.
These increases reflect a provision I supported in the Rail and
Public Transportation Safety Act of 2007 and H.R. 659, the Canine
Detection Team Improvement Act, which I introduced earlier this year.
However, I am deeply concerned about section 527 that would classify
instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as
inherently governmental. This provision would impose a dangerous ban on
using non-Federal trainers after a national emergency and the resulting
needed times of surge.
I also remain concerned about the ability of DHS to recruit and train
an additional 3,000 new Border Patrol agents funded by the bill. Given
attrition rates, this means that Border Patrol will need to hire and
train approximately 4,400 agents a year. While I support putting more
boots on the ground as quickly as possible, I am convinced
[[Page H6273]]
that the current approach DHS is using cannot meet this goal.
I am also concerned that it continues to cost $187,000 to recruit,
train and deploy just one Border Patrol agent. The Subcommittee on
Management Investigations and Oversight plans to hold another hearing
on Border Patrol agent training costs in its capacity next Tuesday. It
is my hope that the findings from this hearing will be considered by
the House and Senate conferees on this bill to improve the way DHS
recruits and trains Border Patrol agents.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes
to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson),
the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
giving me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2638. This legislation
goes a long way to meeting the Nation's homeland security needs. It
also provides funding in a number of areas at the Department of
Homeland Security that have repeatedly been shortchanged.
Specifically, the bill before us today provides DHS with $36.3
billion, a $2.1 billion increase over the President's request.
Additionally, H.R. 2638 addresses many of the areas identified in the
authorization bill that the Committee on Homeland Security developed.
The House overwhelmingly approved the authorization bill in early
May. At the same time, it also is shaped by many of the recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission, as well as programmatic changes called for in
H.R. 1, legislation that I authored and that passed the House in
January on a bipartisan basis.
{time} 1545
For instance, this bill includes $78 million to double the amount of
cargo screened on passenger aircraft. This would put TSA on the path of
inspecting 100 percent of cargo, a key provision in H.R. 1.
Chairman Price is to be commended for producing a bill that makes the
homeland more secure, especially given the tight budget constraints. We
all know that to get border security right, we need to put more trained
``boots on the ground.'' H.R. 2638 provides funding for 3,000
additional Border Patrol agents to bring the number of agents to 17,819
by the end of the fiscal year.
It also makes some major enhancements to the operations of the
Department. It mandates that all grants and contracts can only be used
for projects that comply with Davis-Bacon. It also allows State and
local governments to set chemical security rules that are stronger than
those issued by the Federal Government. And it sets information
protection standards for vulnerability and security plans for chemical
facilities.
I support this bill and urge its passage.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland
Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana.
(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOUDER. I thank the distinguished ranking member and chairman of
the subcommittee.
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a tremendous irony that is
happening here in the Capitol Building today. In the other body, the
President of the United States has come over to lobby for an
immigration bill and the other body is considering this. Yet we are
debating a homeland security bill where we have had Republicans come
down to the floor who say it's too expensive, that it's spending too
much money, but if you took this times four on an annual basis for 5
years, you couldn't begin to meet the standards that are in the Senate
bill. We have people like Mr. Rogers of Kentucky pointing out that
we're mandating Homeland Security to go check everybody in these
detention centers but without any money for it. Unless your intention
is complete and pure amnesty, how would you do that if you don't fund
programs?
Mr. Rogers of Alabama pointed out that we don't have a realistic
program for training Border Patrol, that it's costing too much. Yeah.
Well, how are we going to ramp this up two or three times if we don't
have money to do the Border Patrol people?
This bill is an advertisement, a walking billboard for the gaping
holes in the bill of the other body. On pages 12 and 13 of this bill,
and I agree with all these criticisms as we worked through our
subcommittee, it says that they have to define activities, milestones
and costs of implementing the program for the Secure Border Initiative.
You mean they don't have that? You mean they're promising that we're
going to have a secure border and they don't even have the cost
estimates? Yes, that's correct.
Number 2 here on page 12 says, demonstrate how the activities will
further the objectives of it and have a multi-year strategic plan. You
mean they don't have a multi-year strategic plan? No, they don't.
Identify funding and staffing. You mean they haven't done that?
Describe how the plan addresses security needs at the northern
border. They don't even have the date set for when they're going to
develop a plan for the northern border, yet we're debating a bill in
the other body that says that we're supposedly securing our border?
On page 37, it says, complete the schedule for the full
implementation of a biometric exit program or certification that such
program is not possible within 5 years. Well, I've talked to US-VISIT.
They haven't even been talked to about it. Of course they can't meet 5
years. We're talking 10 years minimum.
What are they debating over in the other body? When the American
public looks at what's happening in the Capitol Building on the same
day and we're passing an appropriations bill that has theoretically
looking at a biometric exit maybe in the next 5 years and the other
body is acting like it's done, what's going on here?
On page 59, there's a direct challenge to the question of our
matching system. Now, the other day we had somebody with TB who had the
warning on the screen, one we actually caught and we released him. But
what we have is a question of are our lists even valid and there are
restrictions on that.
Other parts of the bill are actually going to delay the
implementation of the fence by saying that, for example, 75 percent of
the land in Arizona is actually either government-owned, Native-
American-owned, it's a wilderness area, it's a range; and it says we
have to work out each of those things before we can put any fence in.
Another part of the bill says we have to work with State and local
governments in their areas. How in the world can the other body be
making these promises when this bill points out the gaping holes?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr.
Langevin.
(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say
that I rise in strong support of the FY 2008 Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill. I want to begin by commending Chairman
Price's leadership in crafting a measure that will provide an
additional $2.1 billion above the President's request and fill many of
our remaining security gaps.
As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging
Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am particularly
pleased that this bill incorporates language I worked on to strengthen
chemical security by allowing State and local governments to set
chemical safety rules that are stronger than Federal mandates.
Further, this legislation incorporates an additional $307 million for
aviation security, an area the 9/11 Commission highlighted as a
priority. This bill will allow TSA to install vital explosive detection
systems at commercial airports nationwide and will double the amount of
cargo screened on passenger aircrafts.
This bill also takes the critical step of lifting the cap on TSA
airport screeners, a provision which is of tremendous importance to
T.F. Green Airport in my district.
In addition, H.R. 2638 incorporates robust funding to strengthen
border protection, including $8.8 billion to fund
[[Page H6274]]
an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents for FY08.
Finally, this legislation will help our first responders who place
their lives on the line each and every day by restoring funding to the
local law enforcement terrorism prevention program and the assistance
to firefighter grants program.
Of course, no appropriations measure is perfect and this bill is no
exception. I am especially disappointed with the inadequate funding
level for R&D for cybersecurity. Cybersecurity poses potentially
devastating threats to our Nation's critical infrastructure, and I hope
we can improve the bill in this area. I have a later amendment to that
effect that I hope to discuss with the chairman.
Overall, however, this is an excellent bill. I again want to commend
the chairman and the committee for their outstanding work on this
measure. It provides support to many critical programs, and I urge my
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, Chairman David Price and
Ranking Member Harold Rogers for the leadership and bipartisan work
that they have done in this bill.
I rise in support of this Homeland Security appropriations bill
because I am a Member who represents part of the U.S.-Mexico border and
this is strong on homeland security.
One of the things I would like to emphasize is that it allows input
from the local communities. I think before a fence is put, that I think
it's very, very important that we get the input of the local county
officials, city officials, the business sector before any sort of fence
is put in there.
The second part of it is we're doing a lot to help Border Patrol, but
I think it's also important to provide incentives for customs officers;
and by giving them law enforcement officer status, that will improve
the Department of Homeland Security to recruit and retain those
officers.
The last point is the criminal alien program. By providing extra
funding, the $50 million to make sure that we contact the local jails,
this is important to make sure that we deport anybody who is in one of
the local jails and move them out.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the leadership you have provided.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have
remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from
Kentucky has 6 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much, and I thank
the ranking member for their work.
I want to point out particularly in the interest of our subcommittee
on the authorizing committee, chairwoman of the Transportation Security
and Critical Infrastructure, is the importance of the added amount of
dollars for the Transportation Security Administration, a figure that
is $307 million above the 2007 request, $6.62 billion. I am hoping that
that means that we will begin to look at the entire operations of
airports, to ensure that the grounds, the back side of the airport as
well, are as safe as the front side, that we will be able to screen all
of the employees that come on the airport grounds.
I am very happy to see that the port security grants are there,
representing Houston and the Port of Houston. Lastly, let me say that I
hope we will be able to work together on ensuring that when we have
outreach and security training that we include the neighborhoods
surrounding the items that may generate the kind of nonsecure incident
that may occur. We must provide security for neighborhoods.
I hope that we will pass this bill and add the issue of securing
neighborhoods to the bill.
Mr. Chairman, September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly etched
in the psyche of every American and in the minds of many throughout the
world. Much like the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7,
1941, September 11 is a day that will live in infamy. And as much as
Pearl Harbor changed the course of world history by precipitating the
global struggle between totalitarian fascism and representative
democracy, the transformative impact of September 11 in the course of
American and human history is indelible. September 11 was not only the
beginning of the global war on terror, but moreover, it was the day of
innocence lost for a new generation of Americans.
Since that catastrophic day, I have put the protection of our
homeland at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I believe that our
collective efforts as Americans will all be in vain if we do not
achieve our most important priority: the security of our Nation.
Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and
engaged member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and chairwoman of
the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.
Our Nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11
exemplified what has been true of the American people since the
inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and
always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding
day, on September 12 the American people demonstrated their compassion
and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response,
recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came
together to honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless
victims of September 11. Let us honor their sacrifices by passing H.R.
2638, which funds the important work of the Department of Homeland
Security.
The Homeland Security Appropriations bill makes significant strides
forward toward implementing the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission
report, as well as addressing the most pressing security issues that
we, as Americans, face. In particular, new emphasis has been placed on
port, rail, and transit security; on the need to support state and
local efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism threats and natural
disasters; on aviation security; and on border and immigration
security.
Earlier in this Congress, we passed H.R. 1684, the Department of
Homeland Security Authorization Act for 2008. This legislation included
many significant provisions I ensured were incorporated either into the
base bill or through amendments at the full committee markup, and I am
pleased that my amendments are reflected in H.R. 2638, making
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2008.
These amendments were designed to strengthen and streamline management,
organizational, personnel, and procurement issues at the Department to
facilitate execution of its homeland security mission. Among these was
an amendment to strip the Department's authority to develop a personnel
system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model, known
as MAX-HR. In a number of critical ways, the personnel system
established by the Homeland Security has been a litany of failure, and
my amendment repealed a personnel system that eviscerated employee due
process rights and placed in serious jeopardy the agency's ability to
recruit and retain a workforce capable of accomplishing its critical
missions.
I also worked with Chairman Thompson to incorporate into H.R. 1684
language authorizing Citizen Corps and the Metropolitan Medical
Response System programs to strengthen emergency response and recovery
efforts. The Citizen Corps Program is a critical program within the
Department of Homeland Security that engages the community in emergency
preparedness through public education and outreach, training, and
volunteer service. My language ensured that funding will enable local
Citizen Corps Councils to more adequately provide education and
training for populations located around critical infrastructure.
Today, we are here on the floor to ensure that the department
entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation is adequately
funded. I believe that H.R. 2638 does exactly that, while also
requiring specific new accountability and management reforms related to
contracting, procurement, and competition. These reforms serve to
ensure that American taxpayers get the greatest possible value for the
money they provide.
H.R. 2638 provides $4.52 billion in funding for First Responder and
Port Security Grant Programs. This figure is $1.97 billion above the
President's request, and $863 million above the 2007 funding level.
Even though homeland security costs continue to rise, funding levels
for these grants have been cut every year since their inception in
2004. These funds are used for grants to train first responders, aid
preparedness in high threat communities, and protect critical
infrastructure.
This bill also provides $6.62 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration, a figure that is $307 million above 2007 funding and
$219 million above the President's request. This funding will be used
for a number of key programs, including explosive detection systems to
protect commercial aircraft, increased and expanded air cargo explosive
[[Page H6275]]
screening for passenger aircraft, and a secure flight certification
program requiring the Administrator of TSA to certify that no security
risks are raised by TSA's Secure Flight plans that would limit
screening of airline passenger names only against a subset of the full
terrorist watch list.
Additionally, this legislation appropriates significant funds for
efforts to secure America's borders: $8.8 billion is provided for
customs and border protection, including border security fencing and
other tactical infrastructure, as well as 3,000 additional border
security agents. The committee mark adds $27 million for 250 additional
Customs and Border Patrol officers for commercial operations and
Customs Trade Partnership against Terrorism validation, verifying that
``trusted shippers'' have in place necessary security measures, as
mandated in the SAFE Port Act. Additionally, $4.8 billion is
appropriated for immigrations and custom enforcement, including the
Federal Protective Service, a figure which is $322 million above 2007
and $15 million above the President's request.
This appropriations bill also funds a number of other crucial
programs. It provides $272 million for infrastructure protection, $32
million above the President's request and $44 million above 2007
funding, to be used to identify critical infrastructure, and assess
security vulnerabilities.
Additionally, $685 million, $17 million above the President's request
and $150 million above 2007, is appropriated for FEMA management,
including funding for regional offices responsible for assisting state
and local communities prepare for and respond to disasters. This money
will fund the necessary improvements to FEMA's management operations,
whose weaknesses were laid bare in the shamefully catastrophic response
to Hurricane Katrina. This bill provides a further $1.7 billion to
assist State and local governments following a declared disaster or
emergency, and $120 million for projects that reduce the risks
associated with disasters.
In conclusion, I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose
hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted
lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a
husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead
take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim
the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms.
Mr. Chairman, the best way to honor the memory of those lost in the
inferno of 9/11, is to do all we can to ensure that it never happens
again. The best way to do that is to bolster the efficacy,
accountability, and our oversight over the Department of Homeland
Security, which we created in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect and
preserve our Nation which we all hold so dear. I encourage all my
colleagues to vote for this legislation, and to ensure that the
Department of Homeland Security can continue its important work
protecting our homeland from all manner of threats.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, providing our police forces, firefighters,
emergency medical service personnel, and public health personnel with
the resources they need to effectively confront and overcome the
threats posed by terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies
requires our continued commitment and dedication. Our first responders
work tirelessly to protect and aid victims of disasters across our
country. It's our responsibility to make sure they have the support
necessary to perform their jobs.
The dedicated men and women who serve the people of California's 6th
District understand the importance of adequate homeland security
resources. Each day, ships arrive to dock in ports throughout the Bay
Area, commuters travel across the Golden Gate Bridge and the Richmond-
San Rafael Bridge, and travelers fly all over the world. In order to
best utilize the well-trained first responders in my District, we need
to enhance the security of the Bay Area's waterways, expand our ability
to better prepare for disasters, and improve our ability to mitigate
their effects once they occur.
In 2004, Congress provided $4.92 billion in grants for port security
and our first responders. Since then, the Bush Administration and the
last Republican Congress cut funding for these programs every year,
despite the fact that the costs of preparing for new homeland security
threats have steadily increased. The President has continued to deny
the importance of sufficiently funding our first responders by asking
for only $2.55 billion for these grant programs this year.
We cannot expect local communities to be the first to respond to an
emergency unless we give them the resources to do so. Additionally, we
cannot assure safe passage for those traveling into our country, nor
that the containers transported aboard the airplanes and ships do not
conceal weapons of mass destruction unless we provide adequate funds
toward improving the safety and security of both our ports and our
airlines.
Fortunately, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for Fiscal
Year 2008 represents an important step in remedying past failures to
support our first responders and to strengthen our national security.
This bill provides $4.52 billion for first responder and port security
grant programs, $1.97 billion above President's request and $863
million above the total these programs received in Fiscal Year 2007.
Specifically, it provides $800 million for firefighter assistance
grants, $800 million for urban security grants, and $400 million for
port facilities and infrastructure security grants. This bill also
eliminates the cap on the number of federal airport screeners that the
Transportation Security Administration can employ, which will help to
improve security at airports nationwide.
In addition to funding measures to address our country's most
pressing security vulnerabilities, the Homeland Security Appropriations
bill also increases funding for our country's Disaster Relief Fund to
$1.7 billion in order to assist state and local governments following a
declared disaster or emergency and provides $230 million to modernize
over 100,000 flood maps used to determine rates for the National Flood
Insurance Program. Additionally, this important piece of legislation
will require that all homeland security contracts will be awarded in an
open, competitive process, ending the Bush Administration's practice of
awarding large-scale contacts to companies with political connections
to the White House. Furthermore, this bill will make sure that all
funds allocated in this bill can only be used for projects that comply
with the Davis-Bacon mandate, requiring that federal contractors pay
workers no less than the local prevailing wage.
Securing our homeland demands a strong partnership between the
federal government, state governments, and local communities, and I
commend the Democratic leadership and the members of the Appropriations
Committee for their diligence in working to strengthen our homeland
security. By allocating our country's resources to where they are most
needed, we will be able to better prepare for and respond to disasters
that that threaten the safety of the American people.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the 5-minute rule.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Those amendments will
be considered read.
The Chair wants to make clear that the Committee is considering this
bill under the 5-minute rule. Amendments are in order when the
appropriate paragraph is read. If Members wish to offer an amendment in
a timely fashion, Members should rise and orally seek recognition when
the appropriate paragraph is read.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 2638
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of
Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2008, and for other purposes, namely:
TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the
Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive
management of the Department of Homeland Security, as
authorized by law, $102,930,000: Provided, That not to exceed
$40,000 shall be for official reception and representation
expenses.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Crowley
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Crowley:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $15,000,000)''.
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $35,000,000)''.
Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
[[Page H6276]]
Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Page 40, line 8, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, Representatives Fossella,
Matsui, Garrett, and I are offering an amendment to increase by $50
million the funding for the high-threat, high-density urban area
program. If passed, our amendment would ensure that the program
receives a total of $850 million in fiscal year 2008.
As many of you know, this initiative, also referred to as the Urban
Area Security Initiative, is the only homeland security initiative
specifically targeted to assist the cities and States most vulnerable
to a terror attack.
The Urban Area Security Initiative was created by myself and my
fellow New Yorker, Representative Fossella, in the months following the
attack of 9/11. Its creation was a bipartisan effort, and it continues
to be a bipartisanly supported program. Specifically, I want to thank
Representative Price, chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations
subcommittee, and the Democratic majority of the Homeland Security
authorization committee for their hard work and dedication to the urban
area initiative and to keeping Americans safe. Both of these committees
understand the threats that America faces, both here at home as well as
abroad, and they are working to make the investments that we need to
make in order to secure our Nation.
Although the majority of this Congress understands the threats in the
world that we face, I believe some of my colleagues do not fully
understand them. There are some Members in this Chamber who oppose the
urban area initiative and all homeland security grant initiatives,
calling them, and I quote, revenue sharing, unquote, or secret
earmarks. I think that's nonsense. Would my colleagues prefer we return
to the pre-9/11 days? As someone who has known personal loss from that
day, I for one do not want to.
The chief role for the Federal Government is to protect its citizens
from attack and the Urban Area Security Initiative, like many other of
the important domestic security programs in this bill, help to
accomplish this. While some on the other side may try to play cute
games with words, our Nation's security is more important than word
games or photo ops.
I come from the State of New York where my hometown was hit and knows
firsthand the act of terror. My own family knows firsthand the striking
of terror. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening
the Urban Area Grant Initiative as a way to maintain our vigilance in
the face of continuing threats against America that are both at home
and abroad.
{time} 1600
This amendment is about making targeted, smart and necessary
investments to keep our country safe. The Urban Area Security
Initiative works. It provides needed resources to the communities at
greatest risk of an attack, and it helps to keep those who are
defending us on our front lines of terror, our first responders, our
fire fighters, EMTs, and police officers safe and protected.
This initiative has been a success, and I urge my colleagues to
support the Crowley-Fossella-Matsui-Garrett amendment so we can
continue to make the right investments in the protection of our
homeland.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the
urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there
is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country
and all that need help.
Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is
increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up
to $800 million just for the urban area grants.
Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases
from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already.
Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to
$400 million.
And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire
departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230
million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant
programs, particularly for the urban areas.
I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any
more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause.
I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a
terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill.
This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770
million for the urban area grants.
The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security
Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the
Under Secretary for Management. The Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, or 14 percent.
Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation,
including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the
Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of
Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to
support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights
Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy
Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are
carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could
be compromised or largely defunded.
The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the
office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14
percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million
provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have
already substantially reduced the request coming from the
administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new
headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less
funding available for this new facility.
So I reluctantly ask for a ``no'' vote.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security made significant
changes to our homeland security effort. They announced that for the
first time areas such as Sacramento, San Diego and Las Vegas were at
risk of losing their UASI grant funds.
Since learning of the changes to the UASI program, my colleagues and
I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our most at-risk urban areas
receive the funding they deserve. As a result, DHS has modified the
UASI grant process. DHS's formula now includes more critical
infrastructure such as dams and levees, and has also added a tiered
system.
While I am glad that my work has ensured that Sacramento and other
at-risk urban areas are eligible to apply for UASI funding this year, I
believe my work is not done.
I have spent much of my time in the district working closely with
local law enforcement and first responders of homeland security. I have
seen firsthand the tremendous efforts to protect the millions of people
living in the Sacramento area from a terrorist attack.
In Sacramento, I had the honor of attending the opening of the
Sacramento Regional Homeland Security and Training Center. The new
center was built using a wide range of Federal homeland security
funding, including UASI. The center will improve intelligence sharing
by housing all levels of law enforcement in one facility. This is just
further proof of the truly unparalleled regional cooperation among
Sacramento's law enforcement and first responders.
I have long been impressed by the local law enforcement and first
responders in my community, and throughout the country. Now we need to
make sure that Congress is giving them the necessary resources to do
their job.
[[Page H6277]]
And so my colleagues, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Mr. Garrett and
I have offered an amendment to add $50 million to the UASI grant
program.
While I commend the chairman and the ranking member for adding $30
million to the program, I believe an additional $50 million is
warranted. Our first responders and law enforcement tackle impossible
tasks daily. This increased funding will help in pursuit of their
mission, to keep our country safe and secure.
Finally, I would like to add to what the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) has said about the issue of revenue sharing. I, too, don't
think this is an appropriate place for semantics. The point is, this
grant program and the criteria for receiving funding is predicated on
the assessment of risk and a community's vulnerability. I would argue
that with the UASI program, the issue is not cost sharing but risk
sharing. I think this is an appropriate role for the Federal Government
in the post-9/11 world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in support of the Crowley-Matsui-Fossella-Garrett amendment. I
want to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their work
on this legislation.
Time after time we come to the floor to ensure that homeland security
dollars are allocated on a reasonable and rational basis, and that is
to protect the American people and those who come to our country.
Time after time, we wake up and realize that places like New York
City and other high-threat areas are the subject of potential terrorist
attack. There are many, including myself, who believe that our homeland
security dollars should be based on the threats and the vulnerabilities
and the consequences that come with the potential; or, God forbid, an
attack itself, as was the case, the catastrophic case, on 9/11.
As has been mentioned, our amendment would add $50 million in funding
for the high-risk, high-threat cities to fight terrorism. The
additional funding would be directed to the Urban Area Security
Initiative, which is the only homeland security grant program which
distributes funding based on a risk-based formula, which is a key
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
The President's budget on the underlying legislation funds UASI at
about $800 million, $50 million short, we believe, of the all-time
highest appropriation, which occurred in fiscal year 2005.
Despite the fact that America has not been attacked since September
11, our Nation is still at war with an evil enemy. Indeed, just a month
ago, law enforcement captured four alleged terrorists on charges that
they were plotting to blow up Kennedy Airport in New York City. Their
plan was to top the attacks of the World Trade Center, to massacre more
people, destroy more property, inflict more damage, and leave our city
in ruins.
The threat of terrorism remains very real, making it essential for
cities that face the greatest risk to have the tools and resources they
need to stop attacks before they occur. The amendment will help our
first responders prepare, train and be ready to protect innocent
Americans from acts of terrorism.
I believe it will also provide greater consistency to UASI, which has
been beset by funding fluctuations of hundreds of millions of dollars
from year to year.
It is clear that major cities like New York remain the center of the
bull's-eye for terrorists. UASI helps us fight terrorism, and ensures
our first responders have the equipment they need to protect the
American people.
In a way, just in the last couple of years, a number of attacks have
been foiled thanks to the efforts of law enforcement and intelligence
gathering, much of it because of the funding that has gone through
programs like UASI. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we can keep having the
news media focus on foiled terrorist plots rather than counting
caskets.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be
postponed.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 43 at
the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman aware that the amendment was printed
incorrectly?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order
against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without prejudicing the gentleman from North Carolina's
point of order, does the gentleman from California seek to correct the
printing error?
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I am not aware of what the printing error
is.
The CHAIRMAN. The Parliamentarian advises the Chair there was a
printing error, so the Clerk will report the amendment at the desk in
lieu of amendment No. 43.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $9,961,000)''.
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman from North Carolina not hear the
amendment as read?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. No, I did not.
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be in order. The Clerk will reread
the amendment.
The Clerk read the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina wish to continue
to reserve a point of order?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of
order.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have
before us today would increase spending. When coupled with the
supplemental bill that the President just signed a few weeks back,
would increase spending in the area of homeland security by nearly 17
percent. Now, perhaps people on the other side of the aisle have not
noticed, but we have a deficit, a very large deficit in this country.
And we still are adding to that deficit every year.
Now, I think Members on the other side of the aisle have noticed this
because they have talked about their PAYGO and other principles, that
we won't be increasing spending without some way to pay for this.
However, with this appropriations bill we are doing exactly that. We
are increasing spending by billions of dollars, by 17 percent over last
year's level, without paying for it in any way, without reducing
spending anywhere else, which means that we are adding to the deficit
because of the spending, the additional spending that is in this bill.
Let me just give you a sense of what a 17 percent increase is. If
someone outside of this building in the world is making $15 an hour,
they would have to get a raise this year to $17.55 an hour in order for
their income to keep pace with the spending increase in this bill.
{time} 1615
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most of the people out there
making $15 an hour, or any number you want, are not likely to see their
bosses come in and say we want to give you a raise of 17 percent from
$15 an hour to $17.55 an hour, not something that they are likely to
see. But yet to keep and sustain this level of increase in spending,
that's exactly what would have to happen or else we just take more and
more and more money out of individuals' pockets so we can spend it
here.
Now, I'm sure that people on the other side in support of this bill
are going to start to talk about how important this bill is to homeland
security. Okay. We will have that debate over the next couple of days
about what is in this bill, but what this amendment does is deal purely
with bureaucracy. We're not dealing here with any program. We're not
dealing here with officers in the field. We're not dealing here with
equipment that's being used or computers or anything else for homeland
security.
[[Page H6278]]
What this amendment says is simply that the Office of the Secretary
and Executive Management, the office of the Secretary, purely
bureaucracy, gave the Secretary of Homeland Security and the people in
that person's office, right now this bill gives them an 11 percent
increase, when we're trying to get a deficit down, when we want to, at
least some of us do, keep taxes low.
What this bill says is you ought to be able to get by on what you had
last year. It is not even proposing that we cut the spending of this
bureaucracy, not even proposing that we take the Secretary's office and
just their bureaucracy in there and cut it, but simply saying get by on
the same amount of money you did last year. Now, how many people in
America do that every day but somehow the bureaucracy in Homeland
Security can't do that?
And by doing that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $10 million.
Now, maybe in a $3 trillion budget it doesn't sound like much, but $10
million is still a lot of money. It's a lot of money to everybody out
there. It's lot of money to me. It's a lot of money to you. And $10
million and $10 million and $10 million and we will eventually get our
spending down, and that, Mr. Chairman, is how we are going to eliminate
this budget deficit and that's how we're going to do it without having
the largest increase in taxes in American history, which the other side
has proposed to do.
And what is that tax increase for? It's for things like this, for
things like taking a bureaucracy of people, sitting around doing phone
calls and paper and saying we're going to give you an 11 percent raise.
We should not be doing that, not in this environment and not in this
bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that Members support this
amendment, not feed the bureaucracy further and save the taxpayers $10
million.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it's the easiest thing in the world to come to this
floor and to rail against bureaucracy, this abstract notion of cutting
bureaucracy; but I think it's prudent to ask what exactly do these
officials do and what is actually in the bill and why is it there. So
let me try to get beyond just the symbolism of cutting bureaucracy and
try to answer those very basic questions.
First of all, let me say, I don't know where the figure 17 percent
that the gentleman's using comes from. The increase in this bill over
fiscal 2007 spending, counting the bill that we passed last year and
the emergency spending incorporated in that bill, is 7\1/2\ percent.
And if you include the emergency funding that we just added to the 2007
bill, then the increase is 4 percent without the Katrina funding, and
it is actually a cut of 7\1/2\ percent with the Katrina funding. So if
you're using the 2007 bill as the baseline, those are the accurate
numbers.
Now, let's look at the front office of the Department of Homeland
Security. The bill includes, sure enough, $923 million for Department
operations, but that's less than the 2007 appropriation. It's less than
the President requested by $73 million.
The gentleman has focused on one aspect of front office operations,
which is the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, and he wants
to cut that by almost $10 million. But there are good reasons for that
being increased while the overall front office expenses are being
decreased.
This appropriation, the one the gentleman has targeted, the one he
has said is purely bureaucracy, included in that appropriation are the
Secure Border Initiative office, which many Members on both sides of
the aisle have a strong interest in; the policy office; the privacy
office, which surely needs strengthening; the civil rights office,
which surely needs strengthening; and the office of counter-narcotics
enforcement, a critical function as well.
And the bill isn't lavish even in this respect. It provides only
enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the privacy
and civil rights offices, where staffing levels are increased, and the
policy office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID, a new
program that requires some staffing up, and for the Committee on
Foreign Investment of the United States, which, as every Member knows,
we are trying to also strengthen.
If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which will help to
better ensure privacy, to better ensure civil rights protections, would
not be funded. So let's get past the rhetoric about bureaucracy. Let's
look at what the appropriation actually does. I think if Members do,
they will reject this amendment.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I join Chairman Price in his comments. I think that we come to the
floor with two kinds of amendments, one that really tries to do
something, that we believe in, and another just for grandstanding and
for publicity.
The gentleman speaks about a deficit and speaks about his side
wanting to reduce the deficit. Let me just do a few seconds of history.
When the last President left, we didn't have a deficit. We have a
deficit now. Why? Because we were involved in a war and we were sent
off to war when we should not be at all, and so we spend billions and
billions and billions of dollars every week on a war that was built on
lies and bad information, and now we try to get out of that war. And
instead of getting out of it, we keep spending more, billions and
billions and billions.
And if you think this war deficit is a problem, wait till the boys
and girls come home and we have to provide them the medical services
that some people will want to cut. The deficit would only grow.
Secondly, to be brief, the gentleman speaks about giving somebody a
17 percent pay raise. Yet it was that side that refused to give some
people a couple of pennies' increase in a minimum wage. So all of the
sudden that side is very concerned about raising people's salaries to
keep up with the needed expenses of surviving in this society, but they
were not for giving some folks a minimum wage increase.
So let's get it clear. Yes, there is a deficit, but this bill doesn't
cause a deficit. The war is causing the deficit. The war on terror is
causing the deficit. That's what this is about. This bill, in a very
smart way, deals with some issues that we have to deal with.
And, lastly, it is always easy to attack the bureaucrats. Everybody
wants services, everybody wants something done, but nobody wants
anybody in charge of providing those services. Somehow we expect a
computer to run the agency and not have people actually doing the work.
Let's be fair. Let's be honest when we come to the House floor. If we
have an amendment that really has a message, present it. If we're just
grandstanding, then we should have a disclaimer that says, and by the
way, this is the reason that I'm on the House floor today.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I'd
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
Texas. The gentleman from New York said that there were two types of
amendments, one that tried to do something that you believe in and
others that make statements.
I would like to assure the gentleman from New York that I believe in
this amendment, and I think a lot of people on this side of the aisle
believe in this amendment because we believe that we need to start
controlling costs in this government.
And is this amendment all by itself going to do that? No, of course
not, but it will begin the process of doing that, and in combination
with a lot of other amendments like it, yes, it will start to control
the cost of government, and, yes, I firmly believe in what this
amendment is about, in spite of what the gentleman from New York
suggested.
The gentleman from North Carolina talked about numbers, and perhaps
my numbers are incorrect, but this bill is now at $36.254 billion over
and enacted last year $31.905 billion which is a 13.6 percent increase.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in the
interest of the debate the rest of the day to have this straight, so I
do appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
[[Page H6279]]
It's true, the bill is at $36.3 billion. Last year's appropriation
was $34.2 billion. That is counting the emergency spending that was
enacted at the same time as the regular bill. That means this year's
increase is 7\1/2\ percent. And then if you add the 2007 supplemental
appropriations, which were just voted by the House, depending on
whether you count the Katrina money or not, you either get a 4.2
percent increase or a 7.5 percent decrease from the 2007 funding level.
I appreciate the chance to clarify those numbers.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
To the gentleman from North Carolina, this is something I guess we'll
probably need to work out as we go along because I'm not looking at
increase over a baseline. We're looking at increase over actual enacted
last year, and maybe we can compare notes. But my notes show that that
actual last year was $31.905 billion, and then there was the
supplemental which has been added on top of this bill itself.
But in any event, one other thing the gentleman from North Carolina
alluded to was that this amendment proposes to cut spending in this
area in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. I want to
make that clear. This is a definitional thing which we often have
problems with in this House and in this building.
What this amendment proposes to do is to leave the budget for the
Office of Secretary and Executive Management equal to what it was in
the prior fiscal year. That is not a cut. If you have $10 and I give
you $10, I take away $10, give you back $10, that is not a cut. That is
the same amount of money you had before. What this does do is it
prevents the 11 percent increase that is in this bill.
So let's make it very clear in vernacular that if I make $10 an hour
and I want to make $11, if somebody gives me a raise to $10.50, it is
still a raise; it is not a cut. And that's what is going on here.
We are not proposing to cut this office. We are merely proposing to
tell them, do continue your operations on the same amount of money that
you did last year. I don't think that is a great leap to ask of what is
clearly an element of the bureaucracy, in spite of the gentleman from
North Carolina's admonitions that it is not.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this
amendment, and I certainly support his amendment.
In the big scope of the Federal budget perhaps the dollars are not
large, but before we can really ever attack spending, we have to attack
the culture of spending, and you have to lead by example.
And why can't we ask people in the Federal Government, as we ask
families all around the Nation, as our friends on the other side of the
aisle have recently passed the single largest tax increase in history,
they're expecting American families to somehow do more with less. Can't
we expect a few of the administrators of this agency to somehow,
somehow get by on the same amount of money they had last year?
I encourage the support for this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to commend the gentleman from California for offering this
amendment. I think that at the beginning of this first appropriations
bill of the 110th Congress, which I might add is 1 month after the
first appropriation bill that we, when we were in the majority last
year, that we moved through the House. So the time is without a doubt
getting late, but I commend the majority for finally bringing this to
the floor.
But I want to commend the gentleman from California because this is
the type of amendment that sets the tone about what kind of
responsibility we will bring to this House for all of our
appropriations processes over the next number of weeks.
{time} 1630
I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment. I appreciate the
fact that he has identified an area where, yes, it's only $10 million,
but $10 million in my area is a fair amount of money. So I want to
commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to the floor.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
To the gentleman from North Carolina, just to clarify again on these
numbers, we agreed that it's $36.3 billion in this bill, and the number
you threw out, $34.2 billion, I believe, was the President's budget
proposal for this, and that the prior year enacted, 2007 enacted, was
$31.9 billion.
Do you have different numbers on that?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina for a response.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to clarify the situation.
The 2007 appropriation, as enacted, was $34.2 billion. That includes
the $31.9 billion that the gentleman cited, plus the emergency spending
in that same bill, because as you well remember, we needed to address
the border and immigration situation. So that was added to the bill.
The spending in the 2007 bill was $34.2 billion, and we are
increasing that by 7.5 percent, and then we have recently supplemented
the appropriation. The 2007 spending now stands at $39.2 billion, and
the 2008 bill is 7.5 percent less than that in nominal terms.
If I may just say further, the gentleman referred to the way we do
accounting around here. This is just straight nominal numbers. The
departmental operations are cut--are cut--in our bill from 2007 levels
by $1.2 million. They are cut from the President's request by $72
million. It's not a matter of adjustments one way or the other for
inflation; those are straightforward cuts.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman
pointing out the increase by 7.5 percent. Again, I would like to just
draw the House's attention to the fact that this may just be $9.5
million, but as I mentioned, $9.5 million is a fair amount of money.
I appreciate also the gentleman coming to the floor earlier and
talking about broadening this debate. He talked about what he called
the war deficit. He brought minimum wage into this debate, brought
spending into this debate. That's a wonderful thing. Because, yes,
that's what we're talking about. We are talking about spending hard-
earned taxpayer money. So no amount of money is too small to discuss
and to bring light to.
I would implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, yes,
look at the expansive nature of these appropriations bills, to look at
the increase in the amount of money that this majority plans on
spending over past Congresses.
I also would ask my colleagues to look at the process. Because the
debate has been expanded, I think it's an appropriate time to talk
about the issue regarding earmarks, special projects. We have now a
policy apparently in this House of Representatives, that allows the
majority party or, actually, one Member of the majority party, to
determine when he decides which earmark, which special project,
warrants support by the entire House or warrants the opportunity to
even have a vote on a special project.
But can you have a vote on a specific special project? No, no. What
we will have, our special projects that are the pet special projects of
one individual, brought into a conference report, and no opportunity,
no opportunity for any Member of this body to point out that, in fact,
that ought to have a particular vote, that we ought to have individuals
stand up.
I support the amendment of the gentleman from California.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
We do have some concerns on this side about the legislation put
together, as we would have on any large bill that spends billions of
dollars, but I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his
fair work and his hard work on this legislation.
With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from California.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from North
Carolina.
If I can refer to the gentleman, I believe I heard, and maybe we can
sort this out, but I think that if you include
[[Page H6280]]
the supplementals on both sides, that we went from $34.2 billion to
$39.2 billion, which would be a 15.2 percent increase, perhaps not the
17 I said earlier, but in either event, frankly, whether it's 17
percent, 15 percent or the 13.6, if you leave both of the supplementals
out, it's a lot of money. It's billions and billions and billions of
dollars of increase.
Some of that increase is a lot more than inflation, multiple times
more than inflation, and it's a lot more than taking the growth in
inflation and the growth in population and put it together. Most
importantly, it's a lot more than personal income growth.
That's something we need to look at, as we are looking at all these
appropriations and all of these spending bills. Because if we increase
spending faster than people's incomes are increasing in America, it is
unsustainable over time unless you continue to take more and more and
more of their hard-earned money away from them.
Now, I know that's what many of you on the other side of the aisle
want to do. But, A, we don't; and, B, even if you want to do it,
eventually you'll run out of space. Eventually, you'll take it all if
you increase at this kind of level.
Once again, this amendment does not ask anybody to cut anything. It
simply tells this one element, this one part of the bureaucracy in
Homeland Security to do, get by and exist on the same amount of money
that you had last year.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for his comments.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I felt compelled to say something after the gentleman from North
Carolina and the gentleman from New York talked about bureaucracy. It's
easy to pick on bureaucracy. I ask any Member of this House that has
talked to any constituencies, whether it's about a Social Security
issue, a veterans' issue, Department of Homeland Security, FAA issue,
to talk about it, and they will tell you that they had trouble with the
bureaucracy, that they were having to call your office because they had
trouble with the bureaucracy. This government has grown at a pace way
beyond our population.
As we know, once somebody gets in a position in government, what they
try to do is to expand that position, to get another secretary, to get
an assistant secretary, an executive secretary, and so forth, because
they are trying to build their power base.
So, yes, you ask any citizen that was affected by Katrina on the gulf
coast if we have too much bureaucracy in our government, because a lot
of those individuals down there that were hurt by that hurricane have
yet to get assistance, or the full assistance they need, because of the
bureaucracy in Washington D.C. So don't say that the bureaucracy is
just something easy to pick on.
Let me say this. The gentleman from California is very earnest in
wanting to get $10 million. Now, $10 million may not sound like a lot
to a lot of people, but it's a lot of money. I will tell the gentleman
from New York that commented on what was causing a deficit, yes, the
war is causing the deficit, some part of the deficit. But what is
causing the deficit, this is a moment of truth, is overspending,
overspending.
Yes, the public did speak last November, and what they said is, you
Republicans who have always stood up and said, government is too big
and we have too much spending. Yet we were the ones up here increasing
the size of government and spending too much money, it's time for us to
reclaim the brand of being fiscal conservatives and watching after the
taxpayers' dollars. That's exactly what this amendment from the
gentleman from California does.
Our base, the Republican base, does not like to spend money or does
not like to see government grow, because we think that the
entrepreneurial spirit is that we can take care of ourselves better
than the government can take care of us. The unfortunate side for our
base is that the majority base thinks that the government can do a
better job of looking after people than people themselves.
So that's the dilemma that we find ourselves in, that we have got one
side that's trying to reclaim their brand, trying to make people
realize that we really are who we say we are and doing the things that
we are supposed to be doing in cutting the size of government and
reducing spending. The other side is saying, here we are and here we
are to take care of you.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be
postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $500,000)''.
Page 38, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $500,000)''.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs FEMA to conduct a
comprehensive study of the increase in demand for FEMA's emergency
response and disaster relief services as a result of weather-related
disasters associated with global warming.
It will tell us what FEMA can expect 5, 10, and 20 years from now.
The assessment will include an analysis of the budgetary material and
manpower implications of meeting such increased demand for FEMA
services. We have been warned. We have been warned that we should
expect to see more extreme weather, like severe rain storms and
snowstorms that can come in an El Nino season.
We have been warned that we will see stronger hurricanes and
hurricanes with more total rainfall. We have been warned to expect heat
waves. We have been told to expect melting glaciers, rising sea levels
swallowing low-lying land in places like Bangladesh, Florida, the gulf
coast and Manhattan.
We have been warned that rising temperatures will force infectious
diseases to move north or upwards in elevation to expose previously
unexposed and, therefore, defenseless populations. We have been warned
that droughts will intensify and lengthen, straining already strained
water supplies and bring crop failures. Droughts also place those areas
at greater risk for wildfires.
These warnings come from the most respected, most credible, most
well-studied scientists this world has to offer. This was most recently
affirmed by the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change. Turns out, they were right.
The 11 hottest years on record have occurred since 1994. Two of the
three last hurricane seasons have broken records. The polar ice cap is
melting even faster than our previous best estimates. Greenland's ice
is melting. Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, causing homes to crumble.
Residents of low-lying nations like Tuvalu have applied for entry into
other countries as climate refugees and have been denied.
West Nile virus from Africa has taken a toehold in the U.S. The
European heat wave of 2003 killed well over 15,000 people. Carbon
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at levels scientists say
have not occurred in 400,000 years.
These effects are directly in line with the warnings we received from
the scientific community. Even though it is difficult to attribute all
of these effects directly to climate change, some have been able to. A
2006 article in the journal Nature blames half of the risk associated
with the European heat on human-induced warming.
The World Health Organization has estimated that 150,000 deaths every
year can already be attributed to climate change.
{time} 1645
Hurricane Katrina gave us another grim warning, telling us not only
what we should expect, but showing us what happens if we're not
prepared.
Katrina showed us that when disasters hit, the most vulnerable among
us become even more vulnerable because they lack the resources and
access to cope. That was made clear as image
[[Page H6281]]
after image of those hit the hardest were people of modest means and
people of color.
In fact, in the Chicago heat wave of 1995, African Americans were
twice as likely to die as Caucasians. The elderly, many of whom could
not afford air conditioning, made up most of the victims.
Katrina showed us that disasters are expensive. We have so far spent
about $77 billion on disaster assistance for Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma
and Rita alone. Insurance companies whose very existence rely on their
predictive abilities have seen enough to make them drop certain
coverage and to conduct campaigns to try to reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions. Reinsurance companies in particular, like Swiss Re, have
taken a leadership role in promoting action on climate change.
Katrina has showed us that an unprepared FEMA costs time, money and
ultimately lives. If past is prologue, we have an obligation to look at
the future in order to prepare. We have to allow FEMA to take into
account the realities of the challenges that await them.
At this moment we can still choose among policy options. We can deal
with the effects of climate change in one of two ways. We can
acknowledge the extraordinary challenges before us and prepare for them
voluntarily and aggressively, but steadily, predictably and
controllably, or we can continue to create policy as if there's no
problem and wait for the severe weather to control our pace of
adaptation. The choice is ours.
Let FEMA prepare for the task ahead. Vote ``yes'' on the Kucinich
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the
gentleman for his eloquence, both about the potential threat of global
warming and what that may mean for emergencies that we have to deal
with in the future, and also for the need to repair and rebuild FEMA so
that we have a nimble, responsive agency that can respond to all kinds
of disasters all over this country.
I understand that the gentleman will perhaps be willing to withdraw
this amendment. I hope that he will do that, but I want to assure him
that we understand what he's focusing on, and that we will work with
him as we go to conference to make sure that FEMA has the resources
that it needs. We have beefed up FEMA's resources a good deal in this
bill.
Now, on the question of who should be studying global warming and
assessing its future impact, there are legitimate questions, I believe,
as to whether FEMA is the agency that's best equipped to do this. Other
agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
NOAA, do have expertise in this area, but if that expertise is not
being translated into practical preparation, and if there's not
adequate coordination between NOAA and the research operations and the
operational agencies, then that obviously is a concern that needs to be
addressed. I appreciate the Member from Ohio's raising that concern,
and promise that we will work with you.
Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will.
Mr. KUCINICH. First of all, I want to thank the chairman for his
willingness to work to address this issue of the need for an increase
in demand for FEMA's emergency response services. And I think that, as
the bill moves to conference, that it could be a service to people in
all those areas which are likely to be assailed by adverse weather
conditions to make sure that FEMA understands that there's going to be
greater demand on their services.
And if the gentleman, as you have indicated, is willing to take this
issue up in conference on behalf of all of us, I certainly would be
willing to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the requisite
number of words on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has just been withdrawn.
Mr. CARTER. I believe I have the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. The time for objection has passed.
If the gentleman just wishes to strike the requisite number of
words----
Mr. CARTER. Okay. I'll wait for the bill.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:
Page 2 line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by
$1,000,000)''.
Page 2 line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $11,000,000)''.
Page 4 line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased
by $10,000,000)''.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, I rise today to offer an
amendment that would restore a cut to the Department of Homeland
Security's intelligence function.
This bill cuts the analysis and security's intelligence functions.
This bill cuts $8 million from that account from last year, and this
bill cuts the analysis and operations account by $8 million from last
year, and is $23 million below the administration's request.
I simply do not understand why we would be cutting the intelligence
funding. Let's be clear about this. Intelligence is what we use to
prevent terrorist attacks. Good intelligence helped prevent the recent
plots against Fort Dix and against John F. Kennedy Airport in New York.
The Department of Homeland Security intelligence had a role in both of
these cases, and, in fact, in the JFK plot the Department of Homeland
Security was sharing classified intelligence with the private sector
for more than a year before the threat was made public.
My amendment attempts to strike an appropriate balance between
response, recovery and prevention. This legislation, in its current
form, includes cuts to intelligence and yet significantly increases
response and recovery programs.
While all are important to homeland security, I think we can all
agree that it is better to prevent a terrorist attack than be forced to
respond to one. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this
bill would reduce the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence
support for border security, terrorist travel, and human smuggling. It
would severely impact the Department's ability to assess these threats,
and would harm their efforts to focus on homegrown terrorism and
violent extremism within the United States.
My amendment simply adds $10 million for analysis operations to that
account to help restore the Department's intelligence functions. This
would eliminate the cut and provide a modest $2 million increase from
last year.
The terrorists only have to be right once, but to defend ourselves,
we have to be right every time. Intelligence is the most sound
investment we can make as a Nation to prevent terrorism.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, although I want
to heartily endorse the emphasis he's given to the importance of the
intelligence and analytical functions.
Perhaps I can best begin by making an observation about this bill as
a whole. We have closely examined the status of the programs that we're
funding, their history of drawing down funds, their unspent balances,
their ability to spend the money that has been requested. And so when
the gentleman sees a reduction in funding of the sort that he sees in
this account, it would be a big mistake to read that as a de-emphasis
of this function or some kind of judgment that this function is not
important. We think it's highly important. But we do have some
observations that are included in the committee report.
I refer the gentleman to page 23 of the report about the rationale
behind the, we hope, temporary reductions that we've written into this
bill. It's a short section. Let me just read it. ``The Committee has
reduced the funding level for intelligence and analysis below the
amounts requested. The Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence
and Analysis carried over
[[Page H6282]]
significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and
has shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the
current fiscal year.''
That is not something we're pleased about, but the best way to create
some pressure and some incentives to correct this situation, to get
this function moving, is what the committee has done.
The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $10 million the amounts
provided to the managerial function and the Border Patrol at DHS and
reallocate those funds for the intelligence functions.
But as I said, at the end of 2006 the intelligence program had $50
million remaining unspent, largely because it was unable to hire the
staff at the rate at which it was planned. There's been no indication
from the intelligence managers of the Department that the pace of
hiring has increased, so we fully expect the programs will end this
year with significant balances unspent. It's simply imprudent to keep
appropriating more money when those sizable balances remain unspent.
Now, as for the offset, briefly, the amendment proposes to reduce
funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1
million, or 1 percent. That, as we've said earlier, would nip in the
bud our efforts to better ensure privacy and to enforce civil rights.
That's the reason there's a slight increase in that function. And the
gentleman's amendment would remove that, as well as reduce funding for
the office of the Under Secretary for Management, which is tied to the
need to consolidate DHS operations in a new headquarters.
So, in the other aspect of the amendment, perhaps even more
dangerously, the amendment proposes to reduce CBP salaries, Border
Patrol salaries and expenses, by $6 million. That could generate
significant vulnerabilities in the Border Patrol's ability to ensure
the security of the northern and southern borders.
So the offsets are not good, and the overall increase would, in all
likelihood, remain unspent.
So for those reasons, and certainly not for any lack of concern about
intelligence and analytical operations, I do reluctantly oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Chamber and also to commend the
gentleman for his excellent amendment.
As the gentleman knows, I come from, hail from the great State of New
Jersey where we are all too well aware of why we are here on the floor
tonight discussing the issue of homeland security. My district is in
the shadows of the Twin Towers.
I commend the gentleman for his opening comments when he stated that
we need a balance between response, recovery and prevention. I would
suggest, if we're going to strike that balance, that we might want to
tip that balance a little bit to the way of prevention.
While as glad as my constituents are, immediately in the aftermath of
9/11, of how tremendous the response was from people, not only from New
York City, New Jersey, my State, the entire tristate area, but America
in general to what happened on 9/11. That was the response.
And as great as it was, the recovery after 9/11, and putting people's
lives back in order as well, the thing that most New Yorkers and all
Americans would agree on is if we could have prevented 9/11 to occur in
the first place, how much better that would have been.
Now, we just had another incident in the State of New Jersey as well,
I'm sure the gentleman knows, down in the southern part of the State
with regard to several terrorists, this time homegrown terrorists
trying to get into a U.S. military establishment and shoot up that
establishment. In that case we did not have to look at that balance
with regard to response or recovery because our government did such a
phenomenal job in the area of prevention.
And what does the gentleman's, his amendment do today? He addresses
that point of prevention, trying to prevent another 9/11, trying to
prevent another incident that could have occurred in the State of New
Jersey and the loss of life there.
And what does the amendment do? It tries to restore the $10 million
cut that would have occurred should this amendment not occur.
Now, the other side of the aisle, on this amendment and a previous
amendment, and I presume for the rest of this evening as well, they
will be coming to the floor defending the bureaucracy. They will be
coming to the floor defending the bureaucrats. They will be coming to
the floor defending the status quo.
I would suggest that we do not want to defend the status quo. We want
to improve the situation.
{time} 1700
The gentleman's amendment will do that by putting the resources where
they should be, in intelligence, which is prevention so that we should
never have such an incident in this country again.
I commend the gentleman and encourage my colleagues from both sides
of the aisle to support this amendment when it later comes to the floor
for a vote.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I would like to yield to my friend from Washington, someone that is a
professional in law enforcement (Mr. Reichert).
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding.
I want to just respond to a couple of points that were made. Part of
this budget is classified, and we can say one thing, though, in open
session, and that is that the Department of Homeland Security disagrees
with your assessment. For instance, your report states that the Office
of Operations and Coordination has significant unobligated balances.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of June 7 of this
year, OPS has obligated 63 percent of fiscal year 2007's funding and
99.9 percent of fiscal year 2006 carry-over funding.
So let's just be real about this bill. If you are serious about
intelligence, why are we cutting it by $8 million over last year's
budget, $23 million over the suggested administration's budget?
This is what it does: It will reduce our ability to deploy personnel
to the southwest and northern borders to support border enforcement
efforts. It will reduce our ability to identify and assess threats to
the security of the Nation's land, air, and sea borders. It will reduce
our ability to analyze the threat of homegrown terrorism and domestic
terrorism. It will reduce our ability to provide an alternative
perspective to terrorist threats. It will reduce our ability to collect
intelligence and support those intelligence owners and operators of the
Nation's critical infrastructure. And it will reduce our ability to
analyze terrorist travel trends and methods.
I have 33 years of law enforcement experience in the Seattle area,
was the sheriff of Seattle before I came here, now serving in my second
term in Congress. I understand the balance between response and
prevention. I understand the balance of civil liberties and protection
of the public against criminal activity. I understand the balance
there. This bill puts this balance way out of whack.
One million dollars taken from management in the Secretary's office,
$11 million taken from the Under Secretary's office. They still receive
a $79 million increase. The committee's recommendation in this report
remains intact; therefore, civil liberty funding and privacy,
counternarcotics funding levels remain intact. They are not part of our
offsets. Also not a part of our offset is CBC.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank
the gentleman for offering the amendment.
You want to listen to somebody that has expertise in this. And I
don't think anybody has more expertise in intelligence than a local
sheriff does, somebody that has been involved in trying to find some
criminals. And the gentleman from Washington has certainly done that.
He has brought his professionalism here to Washington. And I think it
is good advice that the Members vote for this amendment and recognize
that we are listening to somebody that has got the experience and not
bureaucrats that think they know how to do a job and they have never
actually even been in the field.
[[Page H6283]]
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support my good friend
from Washington's amendment. It is a good amendment because, as a
sheriff, he knows, firsthand, homeland security. And what he also knows
is the most important thing we can be doing in this time of war is
funding our intelligence capabilities domestically and internationally.
And what this legislation does is reduce our capacity to gather
intelligence through this homeland security appropriation.
Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague from Washington has offered
is a very sensible thing. This bill actually has $23 million less in
funding for intelligence resources than the President requested. And
what my colleague does is restore the funding level to the prior year's
funding for the intelligence-gathering resources of the Homeland
Security Department.
I think overall what we have to discuss as a Congress is whether or
not we are going to fight an offensive war. Are we going to do the
necessary things, the intelligence gathering that we need to do as a
country and as a nation to make sure that we are safe and secure when
we are dealing with these very complicated threats both internationally
and domestically.
We saw what has happened over the last few years with intelligence-
gathering capabilities that during the 1990s were decimated. Our
intelligence-gathering capabilities were decimated. And what we have to
do as a nation is make sure we have the proper funding so we don't have
those threats, we don't have those scares, that we don't have that
level of war here at home.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment.
I urge its adoption. And I think we can do this on a very bipartisan
basis to ensure that we have a strong homeland and have the proper
intelligence-gathering resources funded by this United States Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague from the
great State of New Jersey.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's
yielding.
And I just want to reiterate a point that you made at the end, and
that is to take a brief look at history to see where our intelligence
apparatus, if you will, has been in this country.
I was going to step up to the floor a little earlier on a previous
amendment when one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle
began to give a history as to the budget process and the deficits and
the like, and I was going to say at that time, we really shouldn't be
looking back on some of these issues. But I think you raised a point
that we need to look back to, and it brings us to the point of 9/11 and
why we got there in the first place. And that was, we went through a
time, following the collapse of the ``evil empire,'' as Ronald Reagan
called it, the Soviet Union, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the
Eastern Bloc, the end of the so-called Cold War. And there were Members
from the other side of the aisle in this House and the other House, but
specifically in this House who said, we do not need an intelligence
apparatus in this country anymore.
I remember one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle said
that we can even get rid of the CIA because we no longer need such an
apparatus in a world free of the Soviet Union and the like. That was
impetus during a previous administration, back during the Clinton
administration.
The dollars of investments were not made during that period of time,
and what was wrought because of that? What became because of that?
Well, not just 9/11, which we are all familiar with. Something that
people are less familiar with or already forget was the first bombing
of the World Trade Center, when at that time the towers did not come
down, collapsing upon the neighbors and the people in the area; but you
may recall that bombing in the cellars and the trucks.
What it led to also was bombing of U.S. interests around the world as
well. In each instance it was because of a lack of dollars and
investment in apparatus, invested in our intelligence community, in the
CIA and other apparatus, National Security Agency and the like. Because
of that those things came about.
So the gentleman is absolutely correct in this case of looking back
to see where we did not make the investments in the past and where our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say continue that wrong
philosophy of not investing in intelligence but instead just looking to
the recovery and the response.
We believe that we must be looking to the prevention, as the author
of this amendment said at the very outset, that we must look to the
prevention, and that has come about through the investment of our
intelligence.
So I just want to reiterate that point that the gentleman raised.
Look back to history. Look at which party led us to the problems that
we have today and what we need to do about it today. Look back at
history.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington will be
postponed.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this piece of legislation.
This bill has particular significance for all Americans concerned about
promoting the necessary and difficult objectives of protecting our
homeland.
As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
it has been a pleasure for me to work with Chairman Price on adding
language and enhancements that will make the bill stronger and
generally more effective.
As a Member who represents a district that comprises 700 miles along
the Texas-Mexico border, I am distinctly aware of the challenges that
confront frontline law enforcement officers charged with upholding
criminal laws such as drug and human trafficking. In recognition of
these inherent dangers presented to law enforcement officials, also to
private landowners as well as elected officials concerned about border
issues, and the statutory requirements imposed by the Department of
Homeland Security to erect a fencing barrier that spans 370 miles along
the southwestern border, I was pleased to work with the chairman, who
was working with me on these two distinct issues.
My first and most important objective that I would like to address is
regarding homeland security grants that would hopefully help the border
cities and the law enforcement personnel that are on the border such as
the police and the sheriff, the first responders, for stemming the tide
of drug and human trafficking along our border. Chairman Price was
instrumental in working with me and helping us to obtain $15 million
for funding for Operation Stonegarden, a program that this
administration failed to seek funding for and which had previously been
funded in 2006.
Operation Stonegarden began as a successful pilot program in 2005 and
helped 14 border States on these issues. The initiative gave the States
the flexibility that the Department grants provided to enhance
coordination among not only the States but local community and Federal
law enforcement agencies that are drastically needed. This pilot
program resulted in an estimated 214 State, local, and tribal agencies
working 36,755 man-days on various public safety as well as border
security operations on the border.
The budgetary constraints imposed on the committee precluded more
funding in this area, but the bill language sends a clear message that
programs such as Stonegarden are viable and will serve as a funding aid
to the law enforcement communities along the border.
Stonegarden did not receive funding last year. The funding assists
local authorities with operational costs and equipment purchases that
contribute to border security. The funds are intended to be used for
operations involving both narcotics and human trafficking.
[[Page H6284]]
The second objective regarding the fencing and the barriers that are
necessary, I want to thank the chairman also for working with us in
making sure we provide these types of barriers in an appropriate
manner.
I believe that the bill reported by the full committee and under
consideration by the full House represents the most viable approach
that can be utilized. I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to
be able to present this bill. And as you well know, Mr. Chairman, this
is a bill that is critical, an area that we have been lacking in this
country where the administration has failed to provide the appropriate
resources on the border. So I want to thank the chairman for allowing
us to do that.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $79,000)''.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Chief
of Staff account in the Office of the Secretary and Executive
Management to the fiscal year 2007 level. It represents a $79,000
reduction, and it would go from $2.639 million to $2.56 million.
The bill's current funding level is a 3 percent increase over fiscal
year 2007 as enacted. There has been at least $105.5 billion in new
Federal spending authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year.
The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every
U.S. citizen.
{time} 1715
And it grows by over $1 billion a day. Entitlement spending, being
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is out of control and within a
generation will force either significant cutbacks in services or
benefits or massive tax increases.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability
Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending,
and that is spending that's on autopilot outside the annual spending
process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-known
demographic trends and other factors. Discretionary spending has also
grown exponentially and must be brought under control.
This amendment is the first step of many necessary steps in forcing
fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-
control Federal spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find
both commonsense and innovative new ways to do so, and we need to find
ways to do more with less.
I have often speculated as to how this Congress would react if we
brought a budget down here and presented a budget that would actually
be a balanced budget without increasing taxes. We were on a trajectory
to do that. And many of the things that have happened so far here in
this 110th Congress have reversed that opportunity that we've had and
made it far more difficult for us to be able to get to the point where
we can balance this budget again.
Most of us will look back and remember that at the time of the
beginning of this current administration, we were caught in a real
flux, we had a dot-com bubble that was an unexpected growth in our
economy. It brought in Federal revenues that surpassed the anticipated
revenue stream and actually surpassed the ability of Congress to react
to increasing spending with the Federal revenue increase. So, when the
bubble burst, it slowed down our revenue, and at the same time, since
we hadn't anticipated the increase, we ended up with some surplus in
this budget, and we paid down some debt.
That was a good thing, and I would hope we could find a way to get
back to that good thing, but the good thing didn't last very long
because, at the same time we had the bursting of the dot-com bubble, we
also had things we knew about that had to do with some corporate
corruption. That was difficult on our economy and our adjustments. And
nearly the same time, and from a national historical perspective it was
the same time, we had the September 11 attacks, which in the end
generated the very subject matter that is the appropriations of the
Department that this bill appropriates. All of those things added
together turned this increase or spending and slowed down our revenue
increase. Now we've seen the growth in this economy. We have seen
unprecedented growth in our Dow, for example. And we have a strong
economy that surpassed my anticipation. It went beyond my optimism and
exceeded that, Mr. Chairman.
So, what I would submit is that this Congress needs to have the
discipline every step of the way, wherever we have the opportunity
discretionarily, to take us back down to the level where we can one day
come to this floor, Democrats and Republicans, and offer a balanced
budget and then talk about how we spend that money within that balanced
budget without increasing taxes. That's the key, and that's the thrust,
and that's the message, Mr. Chairman, that I bring with this amendment
that simply reduces the COS office by $79,000.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we
will accept this amendment, but I want to explain my reasoning, if I
might, and explain it very carefully.
For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican
Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member
after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration
bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the
aisle has been raised in opposition, not one.
So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very
carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration's legitimate
needs to administer its Department?
Now, I don't care how many times people get on this floor and claim
that we have made lavish increases. The fact is, and I will say it one
more time, this bill cuts departmental operations. It cuts them below
the President's request, and it cuts them below 2007 levels. And that
is not a matter of inflation adjustment. It is a real cut in nominal
terms.
Now, within that overall cut there are some adjustments. Some
accounts are cut more, some are increased. They are not increased for
frivolous reasons. If we have made an increase, it has been because
there is a good rationale for that increase. A couple of the earlier
cuts targeted the account that includes the Privacy Office, the Civil
Rights Office, offices that need work and need to be strengthened.
So we have scrubbed this bill very carefully. We have basically
provided only for current staff on board, and, in a few instances, for
staff that we knew needed to be augmented to perform very specific
functions. So, we have been conscientious within the context of overall
reduction.
Of course, the easiest thing in the world is to rail against the
front office or the Department, to rail against the bureaucrats, to say
these are abstract, invisible cuts. Let's just cut away, and then beat
our chest about how tough we are fiscally. I tell you, we've been tough
fiscally, but we have not been irresponsible. We have tied, in each
case, our funding recommendation to specific needs of the Department,
specific functions that need to be continued or need to be augmented.
So we are asking, why should we be the ones to stand up for this
administration?
Now, I know not every Republican is in line with the sentiments that
have been expressed here. I know there are Members on both sides of the
aisle who understand that you need some reasonable level of funding to
run a department. And in past years, we have provided that reasonable
level, and we have done it again this year. But we are not going to sit
here and simply hear all this and then be alone in our defense. So we
accept the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow through on the comments made by
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. And I think for Members
who aren't here, which is approximately 90 percent of the body, for
Members who are watching in their offices or perhaps not watching at
all, I should make clear what is happening here and what is not
happening here.
We are not having a real debate on a real bill. What is happening is
a debate, it is really ``filibuster by amendment.'' It has been made
quite clear by the opposition leadership that the opposition
[[Page H6285]]
party intends to bring this institution to a halt today. And the way
they intend to do that is by offering amendment after amendment after
amendment. There are about 120 amendments pending. And as the gentleman
from North Carolina has indicated, we are trying to responsibly deal
with a budget from an administration of the other party.
The easiest thing in the world for us to do would be for us to gut
and slash the administrative accounts in the bill for any department,
because, after all, the administration is Republican and we are
Democratic. But what we have tried to do instead is to meet our
responsibilities. We tried to tie administrative budget levels to the
actual needs of the agencies, and we have tried to deal with those
agencies in a bipartisan manner.
But we have a series of amendments not taking any meaningful
reductions out of these agency budgets. We have a series of very tiny
nicks being taken out of these budgets. And these amendments, in my
judgement, are designed more to take up the time of this body than they
are to produce a different financial result. And as the gentleman from
North Carolina indicates, we have been, for the last 2 hours, trying to
defend an administrative budget for the other party's administration.
Now, we may not be the smartest folks in the world, but we haven't
exactly fallen off a turnip truck. And I also think that we are not
exactly cut out to be suckers. And so, I don't think that we can allow
our friends on the other side of the aisle to assume that we will
simply serve as punching bags, and that we will simply stand here
continuing to defend administration operation accounts.
And so, as far as I am concerned, if the administration and if the
minority party's leadership can't control their own Members in terms of
these budgetary attacks on these agencies, then who are we to stand in
the way? So, I think what happens to these administrative levels will
be pretty much up to the administration's own party. It will be very
interesting to watch.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is asked, you know, why are we doing what we are doing, and why
are these amendments coming to the floor, and why are these Members
saying what they are saying? There is a big picture involved here, Mr.
Chairman, and I would like to speak to that.
Number one, this isn't just about increasing spending in one
particular program or one pet project, this is about the now majority
increasing spending everywhere, on virtually every program and
virtually every pet project at almost every opportunity. Six months
into the new majority, $6 billion on the omnibus appropriations, $17
billion in non-war-related emergency spending supplemental, $21 billion
more on top of discretionary spending above the level at which we
realize the veto threat is going to occur.
Each of these appropriation bills is representing an installment on a
plan to increase nonemergency spending by more than $81 billion over
last year. That is a spending increase of 9 percent, three times the
rate of inflation.
Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that when our party was in
the majority, we made similar mistakes. We made similar big spending
increases. I recall my first term in 2000, coming at the end of the
Clinton administration, an 11 percent increase in discretionary
spending. That got built into the base, and what happened? Our budgets
got thrown through the loop forever. We went into deficit. It was a big
mistake at the time, that we should not have done that.
But there are four specific problems I have with this particular bill
before us, Mr. Chairman, which the gentleman from Iowa's amendment does
some things to help fix.
First, the President's budget called for an increase of 7.2 percent.
This budget calls for an increase of 14 percent. So it raises the ante.
So, instead of doubling the spending at the rate of inflation, we're
going four times the rate of inflation on this bill.
Number two, this bill takes advantage of prefunding. They have
already used the 2007 war supplemental to prefund over $1 billion in
fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations. That lets us free up
the cap for more spending. So, it's really more than a 14 percent
increase from one year to the next.
Third, and this is my biggest concern, Mr. Chairman, earmark
transparency. We have come a long ways on earmarks. The former majority
party made mistakes on earmarks. Let me say this one more time.
Republicans made mistakes on earmarks. And good thing Republicans, last
session, began fixing those mistakes. Last session we brought to the
floor and passed in the rules new earmark transparency rules, new
earmark accountability rules, giving the public the ability to see the
earmarks, see who the author is, and giving Members of Congress, there
as the people's representatives, the ability to come to the floor and
challenge those earmarks. To the Democratic Party credit, they extended
those earmark reforms. And you know what, Mr. Chairman? They built upon
them. They improved upon those earmark reforms. The Democrat majority
improved upon the Republican earmark reforms when they came into power
at the beginning of this year.
Where are we now? What has happened? We went three steps forward, and
now we went six steps back, Mr. Chairman. Now, in instead of giving the
public the ability to see these earmarks, instead of giving Members of
Congress, the people's representatives, the ability to challenge them,
to vote on them, to have scrutiny on them while we consider these
appropriation bills, what are we doing? They are air-dropping them in
the conference report.
Okay. What did that just mean for those people who don't know our
lingo? This means we're not going to see the earmarks while we are
considering this legislation as they go through the House and the other
body, the Senate. They will be conveniently put in the bill at the end
of the process so that no amendment can address the issue, so that the
public will have very little time to see these earmarks, so that no
Member of Congress can challenge the worthiness of a pet project. When
we have come to the time where Congress is putting in thousands and
thousands and thousands of these earmarks, raking up to tens of
millions of dollars, one of the bills we are going to consider this
week has something like $20 billion slated for earmarks in just one
bill.
{time} 1730
No vote, just $20 billion, empty money to be spoken for, later
inserted in the conference report by a couple of people in the
majority, namely the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the dean
of my delegation. No transparency, no public accountability, no ability
for the people, Representatives, to come to the floor and challenge
these earmarks.
That is not earmark reform, Mr. Chairman.
We need real earmark reform. Let's not go backwards. And what is
worse about all of this is, these bills are coming in far above where
they ought to be from a funding level. We are going to have a veto at
the end of the year and a train wreck.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to build on the comments by my colleague from
Wisconsin, but I also want to talk a little bit about this amendment
and the previous amendment. I tried to talk about it, but did not get
recognized by the chairman, unfortunately.
Mr. Chairman, I am very much concerned about the need for us to
restore fiscal discipline to this House. I have only been here a little
over one term. I am in my second term. I came here with the notion that
Republicans would be people who cared about fiscal discipline. We did
not care about fiscal discipline as much as I would have liked for us
to, but we made a start in the right direction, and I was pleased about
that.
Now what we are trying to do is bring more fiscal discipline to this
House and to spending. We do have a broken process.
I find it really interesting that the gentleman on other side of the
aisle, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is talking about
our trying to shut this place down. I think that he has a very funny
definition of this open process and this open rule and our being able
to offer amendments. That
[[Page H6286]]
is the way I thought a democracy operated.
Saying that we are trying to ``shut the place down'' by doing our
jobs is a little disingenuous, I think. I think that is coming because
in the last 5 months you all have become so used to ramming things
through with no opportunity for amendments that you find this a very
unusual process. Well, we intend to use the opportunity available to us
to offer amendments every chance we get.
He also made the comment that we are taking up the time of this body
to do frivolous things. Well, again, this is the job that we are
elected to do. We are not taking up the time of the body. We are doing
what we are supposed to be doing.
You spent 3 months dealing with what we considered a frivolous
exercise in talking about not funding our troops serving overseas,
trying to protect us so we can do the very things that we are doing;
and you didn't want to give them the money that they needed in order to
be able to do that. That is where a lot of time was wasted, as far as
I'm concerned.
I want to also talk about some comments that have been made by
members of the other party that show that there were some people who
made promises that have not been kept.
This quote is from 1-5-2007 from the gentleman from Alabama. ``Today,
we made a strong commitment to returning fiscal responsibility to
Congress. It is vital that Congress improves its stewardship of the
taxpayers' money so we do not pass along today's spending tabs to our
children and grandchildren.''
That is a Democratic Member from Alabama. That is what we are talking
about here today. We want to make cuts in this unnecessary spending so
that we're not passing along these bills to our grandchildren and
children.
From the chairman of this very subcommittee, ``This bill mandates
that all grants and contract funds be awarded through full and open
competitive processes, except when other funding distribution
mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level
playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or
administration earmarks in the bill.''
Well, that is very different from what we know is going to be
happening on this bill, where these earmarks are going to be ``air
dropped,'' as we say, later on, after the bill has already been passed,
and people don't get a chance to react to those earmarks.
Another Member from Arizona: ``The American people deserve nothing
less than a government that is fully accountable and completely
transparent. They need to know that their elected Representatives are
focused on the public interest, not the special interests and not the
lobbyists' interests.''
In the last amendment that was offered, we wanted to do more to
increase what is happening in national security. No. You all prefer to
spend a lot more money on bureaucracy.
I am very pleased that you are going to take this amendment offered
by my colleague from Iowa. I think that is a step in the right
direction. But we need to do a lot more of that. We need to cut funding
here, and we need to make sure that you fulfill the promises that you
made so strongly last fall and at the beginning of this session.
Let's make this earmark process transparent. Let's know what is going
to be funded in these bills. Let's put it all out there. And let's have
the open debate that you promised we would have.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned that this
debate is really not about the bills that we are debating this week,
and in a sense, he is right. Unfortunately, that is the case.
Particularly later this week, we will be debating three other
appropriation bills, some of which have headroom or a placeholder for
tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars that we don't know
what that spending is. It is put in place for earmarks to be added
later.
So we really are not debating the real bills, and that is
unfortunate. We should be. How can we as a legislative body decide
whether this is appropriate spending or not when we don't know what is
in the bill, when that will be added later?
I am well aware of the plan to have Members request and that these
earmarks later on will be somehow made public. But that is the
legislative equivalent of appointing an ombudsman. Why does a body like
this need something like that? We are not potted plants. We should be
able to see what is in the bills. These are earmarks that should be
transparent.
The Appropriations Committee has before it right now some 30,000
earmark request forms that could be made public. Other Members could
see them. We could see if these earmark requests are appropriate or
not. But we are not allowed to see them. We won't be allowed to see
them. We will only be allowed to see those few that the leadership
decides that we can see, the ones that are approved later; and then
once we do see them, we will have no ability whatsoever to have an up
or down vote on the individual earmarks. None.
That is not a legislative body. That is saying that we can't handle
it, so we are going to appoint an ombudsman, in this case maybe a
couple of members of the Appropriations Committee, and hope that they
will sufficiently scrub these earmarks. That is simply not acceptable.
To the other point, that we are simply defending what the President
has done or what the administration has done, let me just take one
program here that we are discussing today, and that is the State
Homeland Security grant program.
This program is being plussed up by, I think, about $50 million, a
significant plus-up. Yet the chairman of the Appropriations Committee,
I think very wisely, in the committee report indicated several areas
where this grant program is being misused, where there are several
frivolous programs going on. Let me just name a few of them.
A $3,000 grant was given under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program to the city of Converse, Texas, for a trailer used to transport
lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races. For a fire department in
Wisconsin, $8,000 for clown and puppet shows. That is under the
Assistance to Firefighters grant program.
Under the State Homeland Security grant program, $202,000 was spent
on ``downtown'' security cameras for a rural fishing village in
Dillingham, Alaska. Now, ``downtown,'' there is a population of 2,400.
This is 300 miles from Anchorage. There are no roads linking that city
to anywhere. So $202,000 for security cameras in a remote fishing
village in Alaska.
Keep in mind, we are plussing up spending for State Homeland Security
grants by $50 million. Why in the world are we doing that?
Just a few others. $3,500 for small crates and kennels to hold stray
animals. This is in Modoc County, California.
There are some even in my own State and in my own district; I think
we are spending $100,000 or so for synchronization of traffic lights in
Apache Junction, Arizona, in my district. That money shouldn't come
from the Federal Government. We are making local governments dependent
on the Federal Government.
Why are we plussing up funding for the State Homeland Security grant
program by $50 million in this bill with this kind of wasteful
spending?
As I mentioned, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee wisely
pointed out some of these abuses. I will offer amendments to strike
some of that funding. I hope that we have the support of the majority
here.
This is not frivolous time being spent here. We are spending far too
much money. We can ill afford it. If we can't do it here, when will we
do it?
As I pointed out, we are not discussing a lot of the funding that is
in the bills. It is off limits. We don't know what it is. It will be
added later. It is secret at this point, secret from us, the Members.
So I applaud my colleagues for bringing forth amendments, and I hope
that we will have more time to debate it.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I too want to comment on some of the comments made by
the Appropriations Committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin.
There are two things we are doing here. One was just very eloquently
presented by the gentleman from Arizona.
[[Page H6287]]
We are trying to say and trying to insist that when these projects,
when these earmarks, when these sorts of things appear in these bills,
that there is sunshine, that people know what they are, that they can
see them and that they are subject to an up-and-down vote, rather than
these big slush funds that appear in this bill and others as they are
currently constructed.
The other thing we are trying to do here is very simple, and that is
saving the taxpayers $21 billion. There is $21 billion more that has
been proposed to spend in the Democrats' appropriations bills than what
the President proposed to spend.
Now, I might add that I am one of the 160 people who voted for a
budget to spend $20 billion less than the President has proposed. It is
not like what the President proposed was a flat budget. It is not like
the President proposed a budget that didn't increase spending; it did.
But what you have done is taken the President's proposals for spending
increases, accepted all that, and added to it in most cases.
I think it is very interesting that the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee seems so surprised that the amendments that
some of us are offering, including the one that I offered just about an
hour or so ago, that these were reducing spending that was actually
proposed by the administration.
It may come as a surprise to people on the other side of the aisle,
but we don't really care who proposed it, whether the President
proposed it, a Democrat proposed it or a Republican proposed it. If it
is spending more money than we believe should be spent, if it is
increasing spending that increases the deficit, if it is further
putting pressure, further trying to create a reason to enact the
largest tax increase in American history that you all want to do, then
we are going to want to stop it. And that is what we are doing.
Now, there was a comment also made by the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee that there were 120 amendments, I believe he
said, on this bill. We are talking about a lot money. I would bet there
are a lot more than 120 earmarks that get put in here by the time
things are done. I know there is at least $21 billion of more spending
in all of these appropriations bills, and specifically on this bill
itself a nearly $5 billion increase in spending over last year. So, for
$5 billion and countless thousands of earmarks, 120 amendments is not a
problem.
It may be many more than that. It could take many more than that.
{time} 1745
These are big issues. These are important things. This is about
whether we are going to start to arrest spending where we can, or
whether we are going to let it continue to grow and grow and grow.
Whether we are going to allow Americans to keep at least the amount of
their own money that they keep now, or whether this government is going
to continue to tax them and tax them and take more of it. If it is 120
amendments or 240 amendments or 480 amendments, we will stand here and
we stand ready to do that.
I would hope that the message would get across at some point to the
other side of the aisle that what they are doing is not right, and that
these amendments are processes by which we are getting to what is
right, which is not increasing spending on everything, not increasing
all of these things and trying to keep it under control and making sure
that when we do spend the taxpayers' money, we are up front about what
it is, about who requested it and why. And that people have an
opportunity to challenge that request.
Mr. Chairman, we have begun some amendments and we have a lot more.
This is not a joke. This is not silly, this is not something that we
don't believe in. This is something we believe in very deeply, and it
is something that is important and that's why we are engaged in this
fight and will continue to be engaged in this fight.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have absolutely the highest respect for the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. He has worked very hard on this,
along with Ranking Member Lewis, on the overall appropriations process.
The conversation he had with this House a few minutes ago concerns me
in that I think Mr. King, what Mr. King has proposed, it is small but
it is frugal. It is trying to set a tone. As our chairman points out,
we have offered, there have been offered over 100 amendments to this
bill. What does that tell us? That tells us there are people who are
looking at this in detail and trying to see if we are doing things
wisely. We are exposing this bill to scrutiny.
I think the message that we are trying to send to the Congress and to
the process is that it is good to lay out before the world honestly how
we spend our money. And, in turn, it is a way to show concern for a
process that has been created by the chairman which will not disclose
how we are going to spend special project money as we debate these
bills.
Two of the previous speakers have raised this concern. Quite frankly,
the chairman mentioned we are trying to shut down the House. Well, if
examining the work of the House is shutting down the House, examining
it in detail, then, yes, I guess we are trying to shut it down. But I
don't think that is the way you shut it down. That is the way you open
it up. You let sunlight come on the process and let everybody look at
it and decide: Is it worth that extra $79,000 or not? That is what this
process is all about.
But in the earmark process that is being proposed in appropriations
this year, there is no sunlight upon that process. This process is in
the dark. In fact, we are being asked over the next couple of weeks to
vote on numerous bills that have billions of dollars set out in some
sort of unidentified account that tells you we are going to spend this
money, we will let you know how.
I am sure my beloved wife, whom I love dearly, would love to have
that deal; and I am sure there are a lot of other people who would love
to have that deal. Here is the pot of money; I will let you know how I
am going to spend it later, but I am going to spend it.
In this particular process, it is going to be done behind a closed
door. And behind that closed door, and the Members of Congress, who by
the way in this Republic were sent here to do just what we are doing
here today, examine this spending in detail, we were sent here to take
a look at this spending on the earmark process. But we are being
excluded. And if we have an objection that we think is offensive to
America, we should be able to have a process to stop that.
But when you ``air drop,'' as has been described, secretly drop into
a conference committee the earmark process determined by one or more
small groups of people without the 435 Members of Congress looking at
it, too, I don't think that is any sunlight at all. That seems to be a
dark, dark room where legislation is taking place. And it will only be
exposed when you get a ``take it or leave it'' proposition back on the
floor of the House. Take it or leave it. You can't amend it; you can't
deal with it. Take it or leave it.
Really, we are showing what it means to put sunlight on a procedure.
We are going to try to continue to put sunlight on this procedure
because the American people have raised the issue to us at the polling
place that we spend too much money. So let's let them see how we spend
it.
I commend those who have examined this bill in detail and are willing
to come in and make such delicate surgical cuts so as to say, this guy
doesn't deserve an extra $79,000. You know, that is the kind of thing
that is going to save this Republic. If we can just get the earmark
process to be done out in the open, in the sunlight for all of us to
see, it would be a better process.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the House, and I
appreciate the fact that we are taking this amendment up under an open
rule which allows for a wide-ranging debate on the important issues of
the day.
Now, this amendment is very simple. It saves the taxpayers money. It
saves the taxpayers money, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is what is
very important for us to understand here on this House floor. If we do
not spend this money in the appropriations bill, it will reduce our
deficit.
As the chairman of the full committee said in his speech here on the
floor a few minutes ago, he believes Republicans are simply
filibustering.
[[Page H6288]]
Well, he is in the wrong Chamber for filibustering; it is across the
hall in the Senate.
What we are doing here today is bringing out the fact that we as
Republicans, our side of the aisle, we actually want to reduce spending
and balance the budget. We have had some tough times since 2001, since
this war began, when we were attacked in 2001. But, Mr. Chairman, what
we have to do is understand as a nation, we have to cut this deficit
and balance this budget and start paying down the national debt. We
have to make sure that we have a balanced budget.
How do we begin that process for a balanced budget? It is not by
raising taxes, which the other side of the aisle already proposed and
actually adopted through their new budget that they put in place this
new Congress. They made it clear that they want to roll back to the
prior level of taxation, the very high level of taxation that we as
Americans faced.
But what we believe in as conservatives, and on this side of the
aisle especially, is that the way we balance the budget is not by
raising taxes on the American people. We have plenty of income coming
into the government, but we have a spending problem here. So with this
amendment we are taking a small step, a very small step, but a step
nonetheless, that will help us reduce spending.
The chairman of the full committee said they have been very busy
spending for the Iraq war, the supplemental vote. Well, as we well
know, within that Iraq war funding bill they have plenty of pork barrel
spending, plenty of earmarks. Well, we believe over $20 billion in
earmarks was in that final version of the bill. They were too busy
spending on special interest projects to actually put in the details of
this legislation so the American people can see what kind of pork
barrel projects they have tucked into the legislation before us.
So first of all, the process is wrong.
Second, the spending is too high. The American people understand
that, and they want us to do something about it. As conservatives, we
need to take that first step. That first step is offered by my
colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, who has offered a very reasonable, very
simple, very straightforward amendment that is good for the taxpayer
and is good for Americans.
We all care about homeland security, Mr. Chairman. We believe it is
in the interest of our government to fund homeland security and
national defense effectively, but not blindly. Not simply because a
number is put forward, do we have to accept it. And that is what the
debate is about here today, about whether or not we are simply going to
accept a high level of spending and look the other way while the
deficit increases, while the American people are asked to spend more on
government through their taxes.
But we have to take that first step. A small step, but a very good,
very important step, nonetheless. I will be proud to vote for the King
amendment when we get that chance here in a few minutes.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come forward with a consensus
that these important spending matters deserve an open, honest, fair
debate. It is not simply about getting it done quickly. We know that
legislation takes awhile to craft. We should have an open debate and
allow a real exchange of ideas about how to best spend our homeland
security dollars.
Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that their government
costs too much. So let's support my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King), his amendment here today, that allows us to take a step in
the right direction.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his
amendment, drawing attention once again to the amount of spending in
this and, I am certain, in other appropriations bills as we go forward.
I think it is important for the Chamber and for all of those who
might be watching to appreciate that spending is, indeed, the disease
that infects Washington. It is the disease that makes it so that
Americans all across this Nation no longer trust this Congress to do
the right thing when it comes to being good stewards of their hard-
earned taxpayer money.
In fact, this Congress so far has increased spending, authorization
for spending, by over $50 billion already. And instead of being more
responsible with the appropriations bills they are bringing forward, in
fact we find tens of billions of dollars in more spending.
Now, the consequence of that is somehow you have to pay for that.
What we have seen by our friends in the majority is adopting a budget
that will be, if not the largest tax increase in the history of the
Nation, the second largest tax increase, depending on how you do the
numbers, but hundreds of billions of dollars.
Mr. Chairman, I know we have good friends who talk about the new
direction that they brought to Washington, given the last election. Mr.
Chairman, I am here to tell you, that new direction is backwards, and
it is backwards to a time of tax and spend that, frankly, the American
people don't favor.
One of the things the American people do favor, however, is sunshine.
And they favor it for all of the activities that we engage in here in
Congress, sunshine in the processes that we have, and sunshine in
making sure that votes are recorded in committee, sunshine in terms of
the debate that goes on. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, sunshine in terms of
the money that this Congress spends, which is why it is so distressing
that we have a new policy on behalf of the Appropriations Committee and
the majority that allows for hidden spending, less transparency, less
accountability when it comes to something that the American people care
dearly about; and that is earmarks, special projects, or ``pork
projects,'' as many people know them by back home.
{time} 1800
We have been harping on this because it is such a change, such a
remarkable change in policy and in procedure here on the House floor
and within the House of Representatives.
And it's not just our opinion. It's not just our opinion. There are
newspapers that have provided their opinion all across this Nation,
that have agreed. They have said that the process that's been adopted,
which would allow for one individual, one individual in this Chamber,
to determine which special projects would be supported and to determine
which projects would be included in a conference report, not brought to
the floor in the usual appropriations process, not so that my
colleagues here can stand up and say, I don't think we ought to be
spending hard-earned taxpayer money on that project. In fact, I think I
feel so strongly about that that we ought to vote on it, and people
ought to be held accountable.
It's the kind of vote that when we were in the majority we allowed
because it's an appropriate vote to allow, and we even went further in
the last Congress and adopted a rule that said if earmarks, if special
projects were put in in a conference report, when you only get to vote
on the overall bill itself, you can't pick out individual projects. If
they were put in that conference report, then a Member of the House on
either side of the aisle could raise a point of order and say, we ought
not be taking that up because it violates the rules of the House, and
had an opportunity to highlight, to bring a specific vote for a
specific measure.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that apparently is no longer the case, from what
we hear by Members in the majority party now, and it's not only our
opinion that it's the bad way to do the House's business, it's the
opinion all across this Nation.
The Wisconsin State Journal recently wrote an editorial and said,
with this maneuver, it will prevent the public and most lawmakers from
questioning earmarks until it's too late. That means you can't do
anything about it.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, But in a slick maneuver, they will keep
them hidden from public scrutiny. In a slick maneuver, they will keep
them hidden from public scrutiny.
Mr. Chairman, that's not the kind of leadership that the American
people want. That's not the kind of responsible spending of hard-earned
taxpayer money that the people want. That's not what they voted for in
November. They didn't vote for more hidden rooms. They didn't vote for
less scrutiny.
I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to adopt any
amendment that decreases spending in this appropriations bill.
[[Page H6289]]
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, you know, it is amazing that the liberal leadership in
the House is living up to the moniker of the hold-on-to-your-wallet
Congress, and we see that they can't even get out of paragraph 1, Title
I, of the bill without spending more money.
And I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for offering his
amendment. Sounds really simple, $79,000, make a reduction of $79,000
in spending and make it out of the Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management. It's the right type thing to do.
In my district in Tennessee, people don't like what the Federal
Government spends, and we are hearing from our constituents. They are
looking at this bill, $36.3 billion, 6 percent more than was requested,
13.6 percent more than last year. And in the middle of all this money,
we can't find a way to fund the fence, which is one of the things that
people want to see, securing our southern border?
Now, my constituents are upset about that. They know that this is
hypocrisy. They know that people are trying to skirt around the edges.
They have caught on to this secret slush fund and going back to the way
they were and the way things used to be done. And quite frankly, Mr.
Chairman, it's something that they don't like, and they are hopeful
that we are going to be down here making certain that we put some
sunlight on what is taking place.
When you've got a group that is so addicted to the taxpayer dollar
that they cannot get out of paragraph 1, Title I, of that bill without
spending more money, you've got a problem. And my constituents know
that that problem is not that the taxpayers aren't sending enough money
up here. My constituents know that the problem is the Federal
Government who has a spending problem. They know that it is the
bureaucracy that has too much power over how that money is spent, and
they know that it is the government that has a ceaseless and insatiable
appetite for their hard-earned dollars.
So I commend the gentleman from Iowa. I commend him for being
diligent and reading the language in this appropriations bill. I
commend him for being diligent and making certain that he goes through
this bill to find ways to reduce what would be spent, to cut out the
waste, to look for areas where it can be pulled in and tightened up and
reductions can be made.
You know, I know a lot of people in this House didn't like the
Deficit Reduction Act, when we made a step in the right direction,
reducing, cutting in that 2006 Deficit Reduction Act, cutting more than
$40 billion, and poof, it all goes away with one stroke of their budget
pen. Given the opportunity, they're going to spend more, and they're
going to hide it and not tell you exactly where it is.
And the issue of earmarks, Mr. Chairman, it comes up in nearly every
conversation that we're having in our districts. Let's have a way to
evaluate those earmarks. Our constituents deserve to know before that
vote takes place rather than after that bill comes out of conference
committee.
In order to fund all this fun that the leadership is having, we face
the single largest tax increase in American history. It is certainly,
certainly inappropriate, and going in here and beginning to find places
to make cuts, as the gentleman from Iowa has done, is the right type
way to go.
If you cannot find $79,000 out of a $36.3 billion budget, you've got
a problem. If you can't reduce some out of a 6 percent increase more
than was requested, 13.6 percent more than last year, then you've got a
problem. It is a spending problem. It is something that needs to be
dealt with by the Federal Government.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the
gentlewoman from Tennessee. I, too, appreciate the leadership of the
gentleman from Iowa in offering this amendment.
Again, the dollars may be small but the principle is large, and
frankly, Mr. Chairman, I really somewhat object to those who somehow
suggest that after a budget was passed in this institution,
representing the largest single tax increase in American history, that
somehow amendments to try to save the people's money are somehow
dilatory, are somehow frivolous, are somehow not worthy of debate in
this democratic institution.
We spent months, months debating one spending bill on whether or not
to support our troops in Iraq, months, and now we hear protests from
the other side, hours into a regular appropriations bill. Somehow after
hours we've grown tired of that particular process.
Mr. Chairman, I'm worried about this largest single tax increase in
American history and what it means to people in my district, the Fifth
District of Texas, how it impacts their ability to send their children
to college, how it impacts their ability to start a small business, how
it impacts their ability to pay their health care premiums. Every
opportunity we have to try to get some of that money back to them is an
important use of this body's time, a very important use.
And so there are several amendments that have a very simple
proposition behind them, and the simple proposition is in this
particular Department, can't you level-fund from one year to the next
year just that group administering the programs. All over America,
after passing this single largest tax increase in the history, we're
asking American families to somehow do with less, and all we're asking
these people to do is do with the same amount that you had last year.
That's all that we're asking, Mr. Chairman.
But there are bigger issues involved here besides the roughly $2,600,
$2,700 per family in the Fifth District of Texas who are going to have
to pay that single largest tax increase in history.
But we look to the future, and we know what happens if we don't take
the first few steps towards fiscal sanity. Already we have been warned
by the Congressional Budget Office, we've been warned by the Office of
Management and Budget, we've been warned by the Comptroller General
what is going to happen to this Nation if we don't do something about
entitlement spending, something that our friends on the other side of
the aisle refuse to engage in. Social Security and Medicare, in their
budget, there's nothing about that.
We've heard from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: Without early
and meaningful action to address the rapid growth in entitlements, the
U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations
bearing much of the cost. Too much expenditure of the people's money
impacts the people's security.
We've heard from Comptroller General Walker: The rising costs of
government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic
consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.
How are we going to pay for future homeland security bills if we
don't take the first few steps towards fiscal responsibility now?
Simply level-fund, level-fund, not cut, level-fund the administrative
function and lead by example. Lead by example.
Mr. Chairman, we haven't even talked about the secret earmark slush
fund yet, which, again, I don't understand. I would think if there was
any party who would heed the lessons well of the last election, it
would be the party that has become the majority party. They know the
people are outraged at earmarks, at the process, and so instead of
taking this forward, the new majority is taking us backwards.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to necessarily personalize debate, so
I will paraphrase here, but recently the Wisconsin State Journal, and I
paraphrase, said the Democrats are now dodging the very reforms they
helped to generate, and that with this new secret slush fund, and I
paraphrase once again, it would prevent lawmakers from questioning
earmarks.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment, and I'm
grateful for the opportunity to call for this apparently Draconian cut
in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland
Security.
Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in the context of having,
like you, served in the Congress before September 11 and before there
was a Department of Homeland Security. And I'll never forget in the
hurried moments that would follow 9/11 how we
[[Page H6290]]
dealt with the immediate issues, funding, reconstruction and recovery
efforts in New York and at the Pentagon, how we put together to the
best of our ability transportation security for our country.
But I will never forget coming to this floor and feeling a great and
ominous sense of foreboding as we created a Department of Homeland
Security. I couldn't help but feel then that we might be unleashing,
however well-intended, on the American taxpayers a behemoth of a new
bureaucracy that we would someday find ourselves arguing over on this
floor in the way we argue over every other bureaucracy.
But it was not meant to be the case. To be candid with you, Mr.
Chairman, I thought this day might come decades from now, when the
bureaucratic instinct would overtake even the wisdom and the clarity
that would be derived on September 11, that made us focus a new
department on the specific purpose of protecting our people from a real
and present threat of terrorism.
And yet as I look at the watch, it is less than half a decade from
that horrific day, and here we are with the party in the majority
opposed to keeping bureaucratic and administrative staff funding levels
at their previous year. It's really extraordinary to me; $8.8 trillion
of national debt, and the majority comes to the floor of this Chamber
with a 13.6 percent increase in the Department of Homeland Security.
{time} 1815
The current budget, $31.9 billion, the proposed budget, $36.2
billion, more than 50 percent larger, or is $2 billion larger than the
President's request. It's astonishing to me. I just have to wonder, as
the American people look in on this issue, if they aren't just
scratching their heads just the same.
But here we are, having these typical and predictable arguments on
the floor of the Congress about bureaucracy and levels of bureaucracy
when we are talking about homeland security. We are also doing it very
much without, as most of my colleagues have said, without the daylight
and the sunshine and the accountability of knowing what will ultimately
be in this legislation.
I mean, it is extraordinary to me that a Democrat Congress seems so
opposed to practicing democracy on the floor of the House of
Representatives. To bring a bill to the floor of this Congress with the
promise that Member projects, so-called ``earmark projects,'' will be
added long after we have had the opportunity to challenge them.
The Democratic process on this floor is breathtaking to me. Again, it
bespeaks of the embrace of a bureaucratic, big-government attitude even
where our own homeland security is involved.
We ought, rather, in this process, to know what Members have
requested what projects, and we ought to be having a thoughtful and
focused discussion on this floor and calling votes one after another on
those individual projects to decide what will keep our cities and our
people and our families and our children safe. We ought to be having
that discussion in the context of a full and open debate.
But, instead, we are told that we don't have time to do that. We are
told the public will be made aware of these projects some day in the
future.
That's not democracy, that's not the process.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to express my gratitude to
the chairman for crafting a bill which tries to do what we want to do,
which is to take seriously the admonition by former Department of
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that homeland security starts in
our hometowns, and tried to officially get homeland security funds to
our neighborhoods.
Congressman Cantor and I were going to be offering an amendment on
the floor to address a program that has been funded in the last couple
of years, albeit inefficiently, by the Department of Homeland Security,
to deal with the problem that local neighborhood nonprofit
organizations, churches, synagogues, civic institutions, are being
visited by local law enforcement all the time saying, here are the
things you need to do to make your institution more hardened for the
challenge of homeland security.
Yet, with all the things they are being told to do, unlike a business
that can pass along its expenses to stockholders, or unlike a
government entity that can raise taxes or make choices on what they
want to allocate, these nonprofit organizations really have no way to
find the funds for things like security cameras, for emergency escape
hatches, for communication devices within their facilities.
The nonprofit Homeland Security grants have done that. They have done
it in a relatively efficient way. You haven't read the stories about
great waste because they are relatively small amounts of money to pay
for the things like I described.
This section of the bill, the administrative section, was where we
thought maybe we could take some of the money to allocate for the
nonprofit grants. The other body, an earmark, is going to take $20
million and allocate it for that purpose. It's only a $25 million
program that we have allocated for the past couple of Congresses. I
think that, frankly, the knowledge that this is going to be worked out
in conference is comforting.
But we need to realize that one of the things we need to do, and
frankly, it's a program that has been administered in a remarkably
democratic, with a small D, way. It has been distributed to small
towns, big cities, nonprofit organizations. They get visited by local
law enforcement: These are the things you do to become more safe. They
have gone out and done it. They have made applications to the States
that have then funded these programs as they see fit.
We are not going to be offering the amendment, although I am grateful
for the bipartisan work that we have done on this. I would like to ask
the chairman, as this moves forward to committee, in the interest of
time in moving the program forward, I just want to make sure that you
are mindful of our concerns about making sure that these nonprofit
grants continue to see the light of the day.
I yield to the chairman.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding and
for his strong advocacy for these nonprofit security grants. I, too,
have constituencies concerned about these grants, about their continued
availability, and have convincing testimony as to the importance of
this resource.
We did not have a specified account in our bill, but I am aware that
the Senate does, and we will be going to conference. I am glad to
assure the gentleman that we will have an open mind about dealing with
this in conference. I appreciate that he is not offering the amendment
tonight, but we will be very, very happy to work with him going
forward.
Mr. WEINER. If I could reclaim my time, I would express my gratitude
to the chairman and also to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor)
who has been so helpful with this.
Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this amendment.
This is a defining moment, an illustrative debate about priorities
for this Nation. To set the stage for this debate, we have to look at
the original blueprint for the Nation's spending that the Democratic
Congress has produced for the American people.
That blueprint sets the priorities for our Nation, and that blueprint
includes the second largest tax increase in American history, second
only to the tax increase that was proposed the last time the Democrats
controlled the Congress. So the revenues that are being counted upon to
be spent in these appropriations bills come from increased burdens on
the American taxpayer.
The other interesting thing about that defining document, that budget
of the new Democratic majority, is that it includes provisions that
would make Enron accountants blush, because it funds priorities like
the farm bill and other major authorization measures and other reforms.
It funds those with these IOU accounts called ``reserve funds,'' but
there's nothing actually in the reserve funds.
So this document raises taxes, spends all that money. Then, that's
not enough, so they include these phony reserve funds to spend even
more.
As we enter the appropriations process to actually get down to the
nuts and bolts of spending and allocating
[[Page H6291]]
those dollars to the various programs, we also see explosive growth in
the amount of money that they are spending and, again, to borrow from
the accounting model that was Enron, more slush funds, more secret
slush funds, stepping away from the important reforms that were passed
in the last Congress that shed light on the process whereby Members
could direct appropriations.
But under the process in the last Congress, it was open to public
scrutiny, it was transparent to the press and to the public eye; and a
point of order could be brought to this House floor if there was not
disclosure and if it were air dropped in the moonlight of a conference.
All that's gone. All those reforms have been swept away by the new
majority and replaced by a system whereby one person, one individual,
will be the sole arbiter of what is or is it not appropriate public
spending, relegating the other 434 Members of the House of
Representatives to a state about as useful as an appendix.
One individual has deemed himself the sole determinant of where hard-
earned Federal dollars will be spent, and that will be done at the last
possible moment in the earliest possible hour of the wee hours of the
morning without the press, without the public, without the taxpayers'
involvement.
That is not acceptable.
Today's debate marks the beginning of an appropriations season where
the Republicans will insist on transparency, insist on full disclosure,
and insist on maximizing value for America's hard-earned dollars and
how they are spent in this Federal Government. It may be $79,000 at a
time, as this amendment is; it may be into the millions or the tens of
millions or the hundreds of millions.
But we will not tolerate having a $2.7 trillion budget rammed down
our throats without disclosure, without debate, without consideration.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Putnam was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. PUTNAM. It will not be done without appropriate deliberation, and
these Members are here to ensure that every American tax dollar is
spent as wisely as humanly possible. We will not accept the largest tax
increase in American history without a fight, and the ruination that it
will do to this economy.
It is important that we review each and every one of these issues,
that we consider them thoughtfully, and that we consider each and every
one of these amendments that these individually elected Members of both
parties have brought to this floor to work through the democratic
process.
That's how this institution was intended to run. That's how we will
insist on its being run, and we will do so in a way that brings credit
to this institution and not one that forces hundreds of millions of
dollars.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $300,000)''.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this would reduce by $300,000 the money
appropriated by the Office of Secretary and Executive Management.
Instead of $6.3 million, it would be $6 million, and this would be in
accordance with last year's spending. This appropriations bill in its
entirety would increase spending for homeland security by more than $2
billion; that's more than what the President requested, and it will
increase spending by more than $4.2 billion over the fiscal year 2007
Homeland Security appropriations bill.
We should show restraint by reducing the amount that the Federal
Government spends, rather than increasing the amount. It is simply not
prudent.
We are at a time when the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion
national debt. It's important, and this is a step in the right
direction. Just as the last amendment saved us some hard-earned
taxpayer dollars, this would save hard-earned taxpayer dollars as well.
So we can be fiscally disciplined and reduce the deficit if this
money is not spent elsewhere. Increasing the size of government or the
amount of bureaucracy, as this bill would otherwise do, is not going to
help in this reduction effort.
I look forward to the debate on this amendment. I hope it's as
productive and successful as the debate on the last amendment.
Now, by reducing the Office of Public Affairs in the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management account to the fiscal year 2007
level, that is a $300,000 increase, or a 5 percent increase over the
amount of last year's budget.
{time} 1830
That's more than the rate of inflation. So this amendment would be
the first step of many necessary steps in forcing fiscal discipline and
sanity upon the Federal Government.
Now, this is part and parcel of a larger issue, Mr. Chairman, that's
very concerning to many of us on this side of the aisle. We have an
earmark process that is not subject to sunshine, not subject to
sunlight. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I'm
disturbed.
You know, I'm a freshman coming in here, Mr. Chairman, and I expected
the better of Congress. I thought that we would have the opportunity to
debate earmarks, and I'm very, I'm deeply disturbed about that because
apparently we're starting down a road of appropriations bills where the
earmarks are going to be saved for the conference committee.
By the way, that'll be in August when we're going to be in recess.
We're not even going to be here. And apparently there's going to be a
list printed, and you get the bill out of conference committee, and
you're just going to have to take it or leave it. That's not what I
expected when I came here to Congress, Mr. Chairman. I expected better
than that. And I'm sorry that we're going down this road. I hope that
it can be changed at the last minute, and course can be reversed.
The bills that are just scheduled this week would increase spending
by $20 billion over last year. Twenty billion dollars is significant,
Mr. Chairman, and this is one of the four bills that would contribute
to that $20 billion increase.
I'm also disturbed, Mr. Chairman, I've heard some reasons thrown
around why this might be happening. I can only speculate, but what I've
heard is that, for one thing, the Appropriations Committee was just too
busy to look at the many, many, many earmarks that were requested of
it. However, that reason doesn't really hold water, I don't think,
because we just frittered away 3 months going through the Iraq war
supplemental process, and ended up where many of us said it should have
started out in the first place, and would have ended up and started out
that way if we had just applied a little common sense at the beginning,
and we would have saved those 3 months, and maybe we would have had
time for the Appropriations Committee to look at some of these
earmarks.
I've also heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that for those Members who
vote against this bill, you know, they can pretty much write off any
chance of getting an earmark. And I'm not planning on offering any
myself. That's probably good. And I'm planning on voting against this
bill from everything I know about it so far. But I just think that that
kind of retaliation is beneath the dignity of the People's Body, and I
think that, once again, that's something I as a freshman am coming in
and seeing for the first time, and I'm deeply disappointed by it.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I
explained earlier, we accept the amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the amendment. Again, we're
being
[[Page H6292]]
asked to approve a bill that increases spending over the President's
request by more than $2 billion.
The majority party wisely, I believe, in the report accompanying this
bill, explained that there are several misuses in spending; that there
is money that is being misspent. How in the world can we, then,
appropriate $2 billion more than was requested by the administration?
If we believe in fiscal discipline, we should act like it, and we
simply can't afford to spend this much more money.
I would also, again, talk about the earmark process. It seems to me
that if we have a transparent process, or we require Members to
actually put their names next to earmarks and to indicate the entity
that the earmark goes to, that that ought to mean something, that we
should be able to do something with that information.
Last summer, during the appropriation process, I offered I believe it
was 39 earmark amendments, and I got beat on every one of them. I was
beat like a rented mule. I never got more than, I think, 90 votes, and
most times under 50 for those that we called a roll call on. It was
because of the process of log rolling. I'll vote against your earmark
or amendment if you'll vote against the others. And so it goes.
But we never had the luxury of actually knowing whose earmark that
was. Sometimes, when the earmark was questioned on the floor, the
author of the earmark would come to the floor and defend it. Sometimes
they wouldn't. Sometimes we'd have the debate. We'd have a vote, roll
call vote even, and we still had no idea who requested that earmark or
what entity it really went to, because the language was very vague in
the bill or the committee report.
Now we actually have that information. We would have a different
dynamic. If you came to the floor and said, I'm going to strike funding
for this amendment, or, I'm sorry, for this earmark, because it goes to
a project that is duplicative, it's wasteful, and besides, it goes to a
project that maybe this Member is a little too close to, maybe that
Member is getting campaign contributions that are linked to that
earmark. Those are things that you can find out if you actually have
the information.
That information now sits at the Appropriations Committee. More than
30,000 request letters sit there right now, and we have no access to
them, nor will we. We'll only have access to those few who are approved
by a very few Members. And then we have the luxury of actually writing
a letter and asking about the project and having the Member supposedly
respond.
But then to what effect? We can take no vote on it. It's all an
academic exercise because we'll have one vote, up or down, on the bill
and no ability to strip the earmark. So this process is simply wrong.
It's been said that the majority is backsliding on commitments made
on earmarks. We've seen that, unfortunately. I was pleased to see the
reforms that happened in January. I have said more than once I think
there were more effective reforms, more comprehensive than we did as
the majority party last year.
The problem is your rules are only as good as your willingness to
enforce them or use them, and that's where we've fallen down. That's
where we're not only backsliding, but I would submit we're actually
cutting and running the other direction. And unfortunately, a process
in which you have some transparency but no accountability is an
unacceptable process.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, 28 years ago I first took to this floor as a newly
elected Member of Congress from the State of California. At that time
we were spending more than we were taking in.
At that time I was one of those who joined others, oftentimes, in
voting against appropriation bills because we were not taking seriously
enough the direction of the people that we represented to, yes, spend
money where necessary, but get our financial house in order.
During those first 10 years I served in this House, many times I was
on the short end of spending votes. I recall during the 8 years of
Ronald Reagan supporting him oftentimes on vetoes. And we managed to
bring some of the spending down that was presented to him on occasion,
but we still didn't do a good enough job.
I left this House for 16 years, and when I returned, I thought maybe
we would see another day. Well, I was doubly disappointed because my
party, then being in power, was not doing that which I thought was
necessary, again, to bring our financial house in order.
And as much as I worked hard to ensure that my party would retain the
majority status in both Houses, the people spoke otherwise. And I
thought maybe this would give us an opportunity to finally get our
fiscal house in order, because I had watched as we had dropped the
banner of fiscal responsibility. I had watched, during the election, my
friends on the other side of the aisle picking it up and suggesting
that if they were put in charge, they would do what we had promised to
do in the past.
And alas, I thought that we had some suggestion that that might be
the case as the majority party took over and, in adopting the rules,
took the rules that we had on some reform of earmarks and actually
built upon them, suggesting to all of us and to the public at large
that we would, in fact, be more transparent; that we would, in fact, be
more accountable; that we would, in fact, have greater responsibility
for all Members individually, and in this body, collectively.
And then I look at the very first bill that is presented here for
this fiscal year from the Appropriations Committee, and I must register
deep disappointment. In the first instance, this is an important bill,
the appropriations for Homeland Security. There is probably no other
appropriation bill that is more worthy of consideration, except perhaps
the DOD, because, fundamentally, we are responsible for providing the
security of the people who send us here.
And yet, while the people tell us that is what they want us to do,
they also suggest that we need to get our fiscal house in order.
So how do we balance that? It seems to me we have to be honest with
ourselves. If we get rid of all waste, fraud and abuse, we still won't
get our fiscal house in order.
We have to have the courage to look at important bills such as this
bill and say, are we spending wisely? Is every dollar spent here
necessary? Do we need to have a 13.6 increase over nonemergency
appropriations from the previous fiscal year?
And I would suggest that unless we look carefully at bills such as
these, which are the most important bills that we have before us, we
will never do the people's work appropriately.
And I'd just ask, how is it that we say we are going to be more
faithful to our commitment to the people, to give them a sense of
responsibility, when we are told that we won't know what earmarks there
are when we vote on the bill because they won't be there then, but they
will somehow be dropped in in the conference report? I don't understand
how that increases transparency.
Now, I was just a lowly English major, and so I'm burdened by looking
at the dictionary. And transparency means that you see better; that you
see through things; that it is more obvious to you, not obscured. And
for the life of me, I can't understand, if I'm denied the list of
appropriations that are going to be put into that bill at the time I'm
voting for it, how that fits the simple dictionary definition of
transparency. Perhaps I can be aided by the other side to explain this
to me, because I cannot understand it.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent for 1 additional minute.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
And I'm sorry some thought that after we spent 120 days getting to a
single bill on spending for our troops, and after we spent Monday
voting on important things such as changing the U.S. Code to recommend
that people fly their flag on Father's Day, that
[[Page H6293]]
someone thinks allowing me to speak an extra minute is somehow
offensive. I'm sorry that that is the kind of courtesy that is missing
on this floor.
I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to conclude
by saying this. If we truly want to get our house in order, Democrats
and Republicans alike, we have to understand that it is when we're
dealing precisely with those things that are most important that we
find the courage to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely so that
we can then move on to things such as waste, fraud and abuse. But
unless we have the guts to do this, we're never going to get our fiscal
house in order.
I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I support the idea of
funding the Department of Homeland Security appropriately, but question
whether a 13.6 percent increase over nonemergency appropriations in the
previous fiscal year shows either that we have exercised that proper
authority with respect to spending, and whether or not we have been
discreet enough in our decisions.
And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, and I would like to ask
the gentleman a question, or ask his comment.
At the end of the bill, in the general provisions, I'll be offering
an amendment to cut, across the board, 5.7 percent of the entire bill,
across the board.
{time} 1845
Even with that so-called ``cut'' in the increase, it will still be a
7.1 percent increase over current spending, taking the budget request
that came to us from OMB.
Would the gentleman feel compelled to support that type of an
approach?
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would feel compelled to
support that type of approach.
And, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is criticized at that time for
having a cut through his amendment, I would suggest that those of us
who want to lose weight should follow that kind of argument. Because we
could say, instead of gaining 50 pounds, we only gained 30 pounds, and,
therefore, we managed to lose weight.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, at the end of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I
can't do it now and I would like to have done it at the outset of the
debate, under our rules, it can only be offered at the end of the
discussion. But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this
body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent
level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number
two, thereby avoiding a veto.
I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for
the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a
veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we
need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I
think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But
this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still
subject to fiscal responsibility.
I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for
a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done
a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not
needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall
cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be
the responsible way to do it. And I would hope the gentleman and all of
his colleagues in the body would support that when the time comes
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield, I
will be proud to vote for your amendment to have a 7.1 percent
increase, which, as I understand, is more than double the rate of
inflation over the previous year.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for
offering this amendment, and I want to thank him for his leadership in
this body, particularly on matters of fiscal responsibility. And I know
his district is proud to have him as their Representative.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter that we discuss this
evening. Like many Members of Congress, I commute. I work in
Washington, but I live back in my district. And I have two small
children that happen to be visiting this particular week, and I think
about threats to my children and I know the threat of radical Islam. It
is one of the most serious threats that they face. So I take the debate
on this bill on homeland security very seriously.
But, Mr. Chairman, I see other threats to my children's future and my
Nation's future. And another threat I see is a Federal budget that has
grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. And, Mr.
Chairman, I am afraid if I look at a bill that calls for roughly a 14
percent increase from one year to the next, almost twice the level of
what the President requested, I question what this is going to do to
the future of my children and the future of my country.
Because don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman; look again at what
the Congressional Budget Office has told us, the Office of Management
and Budget, the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, both
conservative and liberal think tanks. They have told us that the
present spending patterns that we have, if we don't begin to change the
way we spend the people's money, if we don't reform out-of-control
entitlement spending, the next generation will face one of two perils.
Either, number one, we will actually see their taxes doubled, just to
sustain this rate of growth in spending, their taxes will be doubled;
otherwise, we will have a Federal Government that consists of little
more than Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security.
I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is what is almost ironic about this
debate; that as we talk about plussing up this account by 14 percent,
if we don't change the way we spend the people's money, there won't
even be a Department of Homeland Security for the next generation. So,
again, what we are doing here in this bill is, we are kicking the can
down the road, I fear.
And as I look at how money is spent, it reminds me, it is not always
how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And I don't
know if it is the President's fault, Democrats' fault, Republicans'
fault, everyone's fault, nobody's fault. But when I see the Department
of Homeland Security money somehow ending up helping fund lawn mower
races, as the gentleman from Arizona brought to our attention, fund
puppet shows, how is that a critical mission within the Department of
Homeland Security? That is beyond me. That is beyond me.
So I think we have to look very carefully at how the money is spent.
And I am afraid that throwing this much money at this situation is just
going to exacerbate this kind of spending.
Now, in my home district, I am very happy when every volunteer fire
department in every small community in my district gets a new pumper
truck. I am happy to announce that. I wonder, though, with the
challenges we face for the next generation if it is really mission
critical.
And I am very concerned, as the gentleman from Arizona has spoken, as
many others have risen on the floor today, about what is happening in
the earmark process. Again, it is not so much always how much money you
spend; it is how you spend the people's money.
So the new majority that promised us earmark reform is now telling us
that they are going to do something completely opposite. They are going
to take away the ability for Members, Members who are on the floor
today, with the exception of one, I suppose, to offer amendments to
strike these earmarks to get at spending perhaps like the lawn mower
races. This is moving in the complete opposite direction of what the
majority promised when they took office.
The American people will not stand idly by.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was just back in the cloakroom getting a little bit
of the news of the outside world. And the outside world is focusing on
what we are doing here.
There was a long segment on Fox News about the issue that we are
discussing here today. And they actually
[[Page H6294]]
did a fairly good job of characterizing what is happening here. They
talked about the fact that, as a result of a lot of discussion about
the plans by the majority to take away our opportunities to have
transparency in the earmark process, one person is going to be making
those decisions as to whether or not the earmarks are right. We are not
going to be able to vote on them.
They said, I think very correctly, that that is not what the American
people were promised last year. And one of them, not known as a flaming
conservative, I have to say, said what the American people wanted was
maximum scrutiny and maximum sunshine on the process.
And I again want to bring some quotes to our discussion to remind
people of some of the things that were promised. The Speaker of the
House said last December, ``We will bring transparency and openness to
the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the
American people the leadership they deserve.''
Well, I don't think the American people deserve what they are being
given by the majority party. I call it the ``house of hypocrisy'' and
an ``attitude of arrogance.'' The attitude of arrogance is so pervasive
on the other side that it has become something that even the press is
talking about. We don't normally get that kind of coverage on what is
happening here in the kind of detail that they are coming out with, and
I think it is good for the American people.
Another quote by the majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules
that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't
legislate in the dark of night . . . We need to have earmarks subject
to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about.
Democracy works if people know what's going on.''
Earlier this evening the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
accused us of simply wanting to slow down the process by our bringing
up amendments and raising the issues about what this bill does. And yet
his own leader says, ``Democracy works if people know what's going
on.''
But the majority party wants to keep the people from knowing what's
going on. They have an attitude of arrogance. They know best. The
people don't know best. Our side of the aisle doesn't know best. Only
one or two people know best in here.
Some other Members, some of the freshman Members actually, who were
elected last year on the basis of openness in government and reform in
government, the gentleman from New York: ``Mr. Chairman, we have a
responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax
dollars in a fiscally responsible way.''
Some of my colleagues have just outlined the deficit problem that we
have and how pretty soon almost all the Federal dollars are going to be
spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, with nothing left. We
are spending ourselves into a terrible deficit situation.
Another freshman, this time from Florida: ``Congress will not
reestablish its credibility and trust with the American people until
accountability and oversight is established in Washington.'' A
grammatical error there, but that is the quote.
That is what the American people want. That is what they were
promised last fall. They are not getting it.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer a clarifying amendment to the
underlying bill. As currently constituted, funding is appropriated for
Customs and Border Patrol to construct, renovate, equip, and maintain
buildings and facilities necessary for enforcing our immigration laws.
My amendment would have added the word ``structures'' in addition to
facilities and buildings. This minor change would have made it clear
that the Customs and Border Patrol can focus on the physical
infrastructure needs of our border security apparatus with the funds
appropriated by this bill.
Securing our borders, as we know, requires a multifaceted approach.
We need to do more than just maintain facilities and buildings. We need
to build fences. We need to deploy sensors, and we need to take
advantage of all the advanced technology and equipment that is being
developed right now.
Currently, the Tucson sector that I represent has more apprehensions
than all other sections of the border combined. Every single day our
Border Patrol apprehends, on average, about 2,000 individuals and over
2,500 pounds of drugs.
{time} 1900
This is the most porous part of the U.S.-Mexico border.
While most illegal immigrants come here to look for work and
opportunities, approximately 10 percent are involved in criminal
activities. So, border security must be strengthened, and all options
for accomplishing this must be on the table.
Nationally, the Border Patrol arrests about 1 million illegal
immigrants annually, seizes about a million pounds of marijuana and 15
to 20 tons of cocaine. Smugglers' methods, routes and modes of
transportation are potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited by
terrorists attempting to bring weapons into our Nation. The Border
Patrol must be allowed to deploy and sustain an appropriate mix of
personnel, equipment, technology and border infrastructure in order to
protect our Nation.
As Congress moves forward in this process, I urge my colleagues to
allow the Customs and Border Patrol to take the necessary steps in
order to secure our border and to secure our citizens. This would
expand the opportunity for Customs and Border Patrol to secure our
Nation and protect our communities.
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I rise in strong support of the amendment from my colleague from
Colorado. I think it is important that we remind those participating in
this debate what that amendment would do. That amendment would strike a
grand total of $300,000 from the public affairs budget of the
Department of Homeland Security. It would hold the Department's public
affairs budget to the same figure that they are living with this year.
I would suggest that that is not a shocking proposal. It is one that I
am happy to support, and one that I think illustrates the kind of thing
we can do in this Congress on this floor to demonstrate to the American
people that we get it, that we understand that as a Nation we are
overspending. We are spending not our money, we aren't even spending
our children's money; we are spending our grandchildren's money. And
they, the American people, have told us they do not want us to do that.
They want us to stop that practice. They want Republicans to stop that
practice, they want Democrats to stop that practice, they want
conservatives to stop that practice, they want liberals to stop that
practice. They want us to live within our means and to be reasonable.
The ranking member of this committee has spoken earlier today that
the bill increases spending by 13.6 percent. I want to ask, how many
Americans, how many people in this room, how many Members of Congress,
how many of your children who have gotten a job this year will get a
13.6 percent raise this year? I suggest virtually no one can answer
that question and say they will get that kind of staggering raise.
Instead, the ranking member has proposed a reasonable solution which
is, in fact, quite frankly, generous in and of itself, and that is a
7.2 percent increase. Not exactly a tiny, not exactly a squeaky cheap
amount; a pretty darn generous raise, a generous raise that probably
any American would take. And yet, that is not enough.
I also rise to express my objections to the earmarking practices that
are being condoned and that are proposed to be implemented in this
body.
The reality is that earmarking has its defenders and can, in fact, do
some good. The reality is that earmarking is also susceptible of
outrageous abuse and can lead to scandals. Many of the scandals in this
body which were talked about by the minority in the last election are
scandals that relate to earmarks. And yet, in the face of promises that
we would have more sunshine, in the face of promises that the American
people would get to see where their money is being spent, that they can
hear about it, that it could be challenged and debated on this floor,
that it could be vetted and viewed, I happen
[[Page H6295]]
to believe in sunshine. I came out of the Arizona Attorney General's
Office, and we had the most open sunshine laws in the Nation because we
believed sunshine would bring cleanliness, sunshine would allow people
to see what government was doing. And here we propose to hide that. We
propose to hide tens of thousands, I guess the chairman of the
committee says 36,000 earmarks are going to be air-dropped into the
legislation at the end of this process. That is simply unacceptable to
me, and it ought to be unacceptable to the American people.
The gentlelady just spoke of the importance of securing the Arizona
border, and I believe that is extremely important. But let's talk about
one provision of this bill that simply not only makes no sense, it is
hypocritical, and it will clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.
In this bill we say point blank we are appropriating $1 billion for
new high-tech security. And I certainly agree with my colleague from
Arizona that every dime of that $1 billion for high-tech security on
our border is needed. If we are to secure that border, we need that
money. But this legislation says, we appropriate $1 billion, but then
$700 million, almost three-fourths of $1 billion, is reserved and
cannot be appropriated until a committee in the Congress says so. That
is unconstitutional.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. I rise in strong support of the Lamborn amendment, Mr.
Chairman, for many of the reasons that have been expressed more
eloquently by my colleagues, including the gentleman from Arizona.
It does strike me that at a time of an $8.8 trillion national debt,
that we should be able to ask the Department of Homeland Security to
get by on last year's public affairs budget, which is really all the
Lamborn amendment does, by my way of thinking, is it asks the
Department of Homeland Security to stay at the $6 million level for a
public affairs budget as opposed to moving to a $6.3 million.
As my friend from Arizona just expressed, this legislation overall
will allow for a 13.6 percent increase in a single year. And as other
amendments have illuminated, much of those increases are simply going
for the same kind of bureaucracy that we will argue over in every other
aspect of government.
But I go back to my previous point, Mr. Chairman. I thought for sure
when we created the Department of Homeland Security that it would be
different. And I have to say, that is probably a naive thought. We
excluded it from many of the public employee protections. We gave the
President of the United States greater flexibility because we said, you
know, very much like the military, the Department of Homeland Security
will have a special and unique mission. It would not just be another
Cabinet agency that we would be feeding from the trough here on Capitol
Hill in the appropriations process every year. But here we are. Here we
are with a Democrat majority that is opposed to even our willingness,
with the outstanding leadership of the ranking member, to let this
Department get by a 7 percent increase next year as opposed to 13.6.
I also would renew my objection expressed in much of the procedure
that is happening on the floor today and well into tonight, and perhaps
well into the rest of the week; that is, it is astonishing to me that a
Democratic Congress is against democracy when it comes to providing for
accountability in the spending process in the United States Congress. I
mean, to simply say that there are tens of thousands of specific so-
called earmark projects that have been requested of the committee that
are in some filing cabinet here in the Capitol Building, but that were
not able to be added to this bill in a timely fashion so that the
democratic process and the accountability of this open rule could serve
as that antiseptic that it is supposed to function is quite beyond me.
It is quite beyond me that the Democrat majority would think that the
American people would be willing, having clamored loudly in the last
election for fundamental reform in the way we spend the people's money,
fundamental earmark reform, with the infamous ``bridge to nowhere,''
would now allow and stand idly by while the Democrat majority brings
about earmark reform that says we will only bring earmarks when they
can no longer be removed from bills. We will presumably make them
public during the month of August so people can look at them, but we
will give Members of Congress absolutely no power to challenge those
earmarks in the legislative process. That seems to me to be a
breathtaking step backwards from the earmark reform that the American
people demanded in 2006.
And so I renew my support for the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman,
but I also renew my objection to the fact that we are seeing
appropriations bills, starting today, coming to the floor with, shall
we say, room to grow, room to add earmarks at a time in the legislative
process when they cannot be challenged, and therefore, the interests of
the American people and the accountability they demand cannot be served
in the ordinary legislative process.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be
postponed.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Crowley of New York.
Amendment by Mr. Campbell of California.
Amendment by Mr. Reichert of Washington.
Amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Crowley
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Crowley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244,
noes 174, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 453]
AYES--244
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Forbes
Fortuno
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heller
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
[[Page H6296]]
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--174
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Castle
Christensen
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Courtney
Cramer
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
DeLauro
Dingell
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Flake
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gillmor
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
King (IA)
Kingston
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Regula
Rehberg
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Udall (NM)
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--19
Arcuri
Bordallo
Conaway
Costa
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Goode
Gutierrez
Hastert
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Miller (FL)
Platts
Sessions
Westmoreland
{time} 1935
Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, SPRATT, CUELLAR, BOSWELL, and
ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. INSLEE, GINGREY, CRENSHAW, PASTOR and BILBRAY changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 453, had I been present, I
would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell of California
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201,
noes 221, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 454]
AYES--201
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Cooper
Costa
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
[[Page H6297]]
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--15
Arcuri
Bilirakis
Conaway
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Gutierrez
Hastert
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Rangel
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain
in this vote.
{time} 1942
Mr. BARROW changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Reichert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218,
noes 205, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 455]
AYES--218
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fortuno
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hoekstra
Holt
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Israel
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Mahoney (FL)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pascrell
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--205
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bordallo
Boren
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Ellison
Emanuel
Engel
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Norton
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Sutton
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--14
Arcuri
Conaway
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Franks (AZ)
Gutierrez
Hastert
Hobson
Issa
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are exactly
2 minutes remaining.
{time} 1949
Mrs. BACHMANN and Mr. LARSEN of Washington changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 379,
noes 45, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 456]
AYES--379
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
[[Page H6298]]
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--45
Baird
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Carson
Christensen
Clarke
Cohen
Dingell
Engel
Fattah
Grijalva
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCaul (TX)
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Mollohan
Murphy (CT)
Murtha
Nadler
Pascrell
Payne
Ryan (OH)
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Waters
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--13
Arcuri
Conaway
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Hastert
Kuhl (NY)
LaTourette
Lewis (GA)
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1956
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Lamborn
The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 381,
noes 41, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 457]
AYES--381
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Baldwin
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Bordallo
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Carter
Castle
Castor
Chabot
Chandler
Christensen
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kagen
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
LaHood
Lamborn
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McCrery
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mitchell
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Norton
Nunes
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tierney
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--41
Baird
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Clarke
Costello
Dingell
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Grijalva
Hinchey
Honda
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
[[Page H6299]]
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kanjorski
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Mahoney (FL)
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McNerney
McNulty
Mollohan
Murphy (CT)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sestak
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Towns
Waters
Weiner
Woolsey
NOT VOTING--15
Arcuri
Conaway
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Hastert
Kuhl (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Oberstar
Sali
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in the vote.
{time} 2002
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Foxx
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 33 offered by Ms. Foxx:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,241,000)''.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Office of
General Counsel in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management
account to the FY 2007 level representing a $1.241 million reduction
from $14 million to $12,759,000. The bill's current funding level for
this office represents a 10 percent increase over FY 2007, enacted.
There has been at least $105.5 billion in Federal spending over 5
years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The
current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S.
citizen.
This is growing by over $1 billion a day. We know that because every
day we walk down the halls of these buildings here, and we see the
signs that the Blue Dogs have put out, which remind us what the current
Federal debt is and how much it is for every single U.S. citizen.
Spending on the programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is
out of control, and within a generation will force either significant
cutbacks in services and benefits or massive tax increases. We know
that is already happening because the Democratic majority has already
recommended the largest tax increase in the history of this country
through their budget they adopted earlier this year.
The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability
Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending,
for instance, spending that is on autopilot and outside the annual
spending process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-
known demographic trends and other factors. That spending, subject to
the annual spending process, has also grown exponentially and must be
brought under control.
This amendment is one step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal
discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-control
Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find
both commonsense and innovative new ways to do more with less. The
Federal budget must not grow faster than American families' ability to
pay for it.
We have been hearing a lot here tonight about fiscal responsibility
and spending, taxes and deficits. There was a lot of talk about these
things during the last election. I think there is a lot of confusion
and misinformation out there right now, and I want to take a few
minutes to give people a heads-up on what's going on.
This debate and all this talk need some context and some simple
facts. Speaker Pelosi said on September 12, 2006, ``Democrats are
committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have
produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of
debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore pay-as-you-go
budget discipline.''
If you want to know exactly what's not going to happen to the Federal
budget under this Congress, listen to that statement. PAYGO will not
touch a cent of the trillions of dollars with which we have saddled our
children and grandchildren. Furthermore, new spending will be proposed
and taxes raised to pay for it.
That's what we are seeing here, and that's what this debate is all
about. The plan is to spend more than ever, repeal tax relief and allow
the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities to go on unreformed,
all under the veneer of fiscal responsibility called PAYGO.
I am down here now because I want people to know this, and to know
what it means. I want to put this debate in context.
This bill and the others we will debate in the coming weeks mean that
the Federal Government is going to cost you more. You are going to pay
more than you ever have before in taxes. I think we need to talk about
that.
People can deny it and spin it any way they want, but the cost of the
Federal Government is going to increase under the current fiscal plan.
This is in spite of the fact that Americans already pay a staggering
amount of money, but Democrats want more. They always do and they
always will, even though the average American worked about 125.6 days
in 2005 to pay for Federal, State and local spending.
Guess where the largest part of it went. To the politicians right
here in Washington. In 2005, the average American worked about 83 days
to pay for Federal spending. Guess what, it's not enough. These numbers
are set to increase as far as the eye can see.
Now, let's just put Federal spending into context.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, since the House was
not in order, for another minute.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will have another minute, but the Chair
will, for the edification of all Members, point out that the very able
timekeepers do stop the clock when Members are interrupted.
Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North
Carolina?
There was no objection.
Ms. FOXX. Let's just put Federal spending into context. Do you know
that the United States Federal Government is on track to spend more
money next year than Germany's entire economy in 2005? Germany is and
has been the third largest economy in the world.
There are only two countries in the world with entire economies
larger than the U.S. Government budget, the United States itself and
Japan. Do you know that next fiscal year, the fiscal year we are
considering now, the U.S. Government is on track to spend $700 billion
more, $700 billion more. That's more than the entire Chinese economy in
2005.
We are on a spending spree that needs to stop. It's called a tax-and-
spend policy. That's the model. It hasn't changed.
So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and make a
very small dent in this unsustainable fiscal policy.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept the
amendment, but I want to make clear that we are doing it in the spirit
that we accepted earlier amendments. That is, if no one on the other
side of the aisle is willing and able to defend the Bush administration
and their budget request and their departmental operations, then it's
not clear to us why we should take that on. We have had a steady stream
of invective tonight, a lot of ideology, a lot of bureaucratic bashing,
and not very much attention to the specifics of this very carefully
drawn budget.
Now, you wouldn't have known it from the last presentation, but let
me tell you what this amendment does. The amendment cuts the funding
for the general counsel in the Department $1.2 million below President
Bush's request. Now, it's not about earmarks. It's not about the
history of the parties and their ideologies. It's about cutting $1.2
billion below President Bush's request for the general counsel in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Now, Members can make their own decision about whether that's wise.
But as for us, we don't intend to oppose the amendment.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
[[Page H6300]]
Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify again that the gentleman from North
Carolina just said that this amendment proposed by Ms. Foxx cuts $1.24
million from the President's request.
It is true that, in fact, it proposes to spend less on the Office of
General Counsel, which is the attorneys, than what the President has
proposed. But that does not make it a cut. Because what it proposes to
do is leave the spending for the Office of General Counsel, for the
attorneys, in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management at
exactly the same level they had last year.
I really have a hard time understanding how it is always a cut when
it is less of an increase than you want it to be, or than somebody
wants it to be, in this case, I suppose, than the President wants it to
be. But we are not looking at this as Republican spending or Democratic
spending, we are looking at it as spending.
The reason, I am not sure that it's been made quite as clear as
perhaps it ought to be, that in the Democrats' budget that you all
passed a month or so ago, where you moved towards a balanced budget,
and I take you at your word that it's your intention to, at some point,
get to a balanced budget, but you did it by enacting, proposing, I
guess it's the second largest tax increase in American history, which
means that as you increase spending on things, you intend to then
balance the budget by increasing taxes.
That is clearly what you are going to do. That is what your budget
does, and you have made it very clear through your PAYGO provisions
what you intend to do. When you increase spending, going to balance the
budget will increase taxes.
So with this amendment and with every other amendment we are looking
at, we are saying here that we are not going to increase spending in
the Office of General Counsel by $1.2 million. That is $1.2 million of
additional spending that will not occur if this amendment passes.
But that means it is $1.2 million of taxes that you all won't raise
if this amendment passes. Now that works on this amendment, it works on
various other amendments that will be coming up through the evening. So
it's more than just an academic exercise about whether or not a certain
department's budget should be increased.
{time} 2015
It, in fact, affects, Mr. Chairman, people at home today now watching
this. Is this $1.2 million that you want to see your taxes increase to
spend? I think not. I think most of the people on this side believe
not; and that is really what we're talking about, because if you say,
as you did in your budget, that you will increase whatever taxes you
need to to get to a balanced budget, then this $1.2 million is $1.2
million of money that you will take out of Americans' pockets that
you're not taking now.
And it's really more than that, because if this were to go in, then
next year there's a new base, and it's a higher base, and if you
increase it another 10 percent beyond that, then it's another $1.22
million; and if you increase it again, it's another $1.44 million. And
it goes on and on, and so that over a 5-year period this $1.2 million
magically turns into about $6 million or so of people's money that gets
spent, and which you will propose, undoubtedly, to increase taxes to
cover so that you can balance the budget.
We can balance this budget, and we can balance it without taking any
more money out of Americans' pockets. And we can balance it by passing
amendments like this and simply asking government to live with the
money they have now. This is not a cut, just live with the money you
have now.
Can't this General Counsel's Office, can't these attorneys operate
for another year on the same amount of money that they got last year? I
think they can.
Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady from North
Carolina for offering this amendment. Any time we can save $1.2
million, I think we ought to do it.
We have Americans sitting across our great fruited plain tonight
listening to this debate. They've just gotten up from their dinner
tables, trying to make decisions on how they can balance their own
budgets.
When we first came to Congress, I'm a new Member of Congress. I came
out of the Tennessee Legislature. When we came here, we talked about
open government and transparency, and we're going to be the most honest
government in Congress ever; also talked about gas prices are going to
be brought down rather than go up. Those are just some of the things
that were promised.
Well, American families are sitting around their dinner tables
tonight trying to decide how they're going to balance their own budget,
and they're looking to us here in the Congress to make sure that we
don't put an extra burden on them by raising their taxes and raising
these appropriation requests.
I came to the Congress out of the Tennessee Legislature, as I said,
and I was known for open government and transparency. That's one of the
ways I was able to win my election. And that's exactly what people want
in this Congress. They want a Congress that they can feel good about,
that we're going to be honest with them and we're going to spend their
tax dollars wisely.
Ronald Reagan once said, we don't have a $1 trillion debt because we
don't tax enough. We have a $1 trillion debt because we spend too much.
And anything we can do to help control those tax dollars and that
spending is exactly what we need to do.
We need that transparency and that accountability as we move forward,
and we don't need secret slush funds. We don't need to come in after we
pass bills, later on, and then drop in pieces of legislation called
earmarks. That was another promise that was made during the last
elections, that those would be open and transparent. We don't need to
drop those in later, where the American people don't have an
understanding.
They understand they've got to make their house payments. They
understand they've got to fill up their vehicles and their cars with
this gas that was going to have lower gasoline prices. They understand
that. But they certainly need to understand, as well, what we're voting
on. We need to be open and accountable.
It's interesting to me, just looking back at some of the things that
were said by the Democrat leadership. Back on September 14 of 2006, the
Speaker of this House said, this is a place where we really need to
throw up the shades and pull back the curtains. We have to have the
fullest possible disclosure. It has to be on earmarks and
appropriations and authorizations and on taxation, and it has to be
across the board with no escape hatches.
Well, I stand in support of this amendment, so we can make sure that
we throw up the shades and make sure that we're held accountable.
I'd like, again, to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her
leadership on this amendment.
And with that, I'd like to yield my time to the gentlelady from North
Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I thank my colleagues for
coming and supporting my amendment tonight. I thank them for the points
that they are bringing up.
The gentleman from Tennessee is doing an excellent job in his first
year here in the Congress.
I also want to thank my colleague from California who made a really
excellent point that is something that needs to be made over and over
again. When we try to cut back additional spending, it is always a cut,
not raising money. Not raising spending is a cut to Democrats. And I
think that's a point that needs to be made over and over again. Not
increasing spending is a cut. That's not the way the general public
sees it.
I also want to point out the fact that we are working very hard to
bring us to the point where we could have a balanced budget.
Americans do have to live with a balanced budget. Individual
Americans have to. They have to live with the money they have now. But
Congress doesn't do that. And this Congress particularly is looking for
every way it possibly can to spend additional money and to tax the
American public, which is certainly taxed enough.
This seems like, to the majority party, that this, again, is a cut.
But
[[Page H6301]]
Everett Dirksen, one of my heroes, said, a million here and million
there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. That was during
the time when they were not billions.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your patience as some of us exercise
our frustration and try and make a point or two. And I want to commend
the gentlelady from Virginia for offering this amendment to cut $1.241
million from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of the
Secretary and Executive Management account from the fiscal year 2008
level that's being proposed here.
It would still be an increase, but there's two areas that I want to
highlight with my frustration, and one is, with an overall level of
antagonism and kind of vitriolic partisanship that's occurring here,
and I think a lot of it's a frustration or results from our
frustration.
For example, in the last year or so, as our friends in the now
majority, then minority, were bringing up and talking about how we were
spending so much and that we were out of control, and I've got to tell
you, I voted against some of our appropriation bills because I thought
that they were too high.
The interesting part is when people in my district would come up,
having bought into this rhetoric, I said, but you don't understand that
we're fighting with them every day to keep it as low as it is. I said,
if they're in charge, just wait.
Well, here we are with the first bill, and it's a 13.6 percent
increase over last year's appropriation. And we had a speaker up here
earlier that talked about building that base. You increase it 13.6, and
then next year, when you increase it 13.6, just the exponential
increases in the budget.
When you look at those that we passed last year, we are barely above
the inflation rate in these discretionary accounts, but yet we were
criticized by the now majority for being too ``spendy.''
So I see the irony, and most of it was, you know, we tried to tell
people last year that this is just their campaign nasty rhetoric. But
it seems odd to me that just their first bill they're going to increase
it so dramatically.
Now, I'll tell you another area of my frustration was coupled with
the criticism from the now majority last year about earmarks and the
process. And we passed a bill last year that altered the process for
earmarks, and it was one that I thought was very appropriate because it
dealt with earmarks by spreading sunshine on the process. And I really
believe that sunshine is always the best disinfectant. So we adopted a
process that embraces sunshine. What it means is that somebody had to
have ownership for an earmark request, and that the earmark request had
to go through what we would deem regular order, which means you submit
it to the appropriations subcommittee staff, then I would go and
testify in front of that subcommittee on my earmark; we could have give
and take and an intellectual conversation about that, and it would be
then voted upon by that subcommittee, which would then raise up to the
committee level where that earmark or that Member request would then be
reviewed again.
The most important part of the process is when you get it out of the
appropriations arena and bring it to the House floor where everyone can
then see it and determine whether or not there should be an amendment
to strike that particular provision from the appropriation bill. This
is when everyone then gets to be part of the process of making sure
that it's a valid, well, whatever is determined to be valid, but
whether it's not, you know, a rainforest in Iowa City or some type of
pet project like that.
I remember last year we voted probably almost on every appropriation
bill at least a dozen amendments to strip out these type of really pet
projects that just really didn't mean much for the Nation, but
certainly may have meant something for a neighborhood. Now, most of
those failed, although I voted in favor of most of them.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. You
know, I think sometimes we get a little crass around here and we think,
oh, it's just $1 million, it's just $1.2 million. But the people back
in the 19th District of Texas still think that $1.2 million is a lot of
money. In fact, it's their hard-earned money that we're debating on the
floor of this House tonight. I think sometimes we forget that.
One of the things that I am very proud of is the fact that our
economy has been growing at a very strong rate for the last few years.
We found a novel idea about leaving more of the American taxpayers'
money in their pocket, and what happened? The economy started getting
better, more jobs.
More people today, Mr. Chairman, own a home than any other time in
the history of this country. More people working today than any other
time in the history of this country. And why is that? Because we're
creating jobs. And who are creating those jobs? Businessmen all over
this country.
And one of the things that concerns me about this budget process that
we've gone down, and it's been alluded to tonight, is really what we're
talking about tonight is tax increases, because we know that this
budget is going to be financed with more taxes.
{time} 2030
And, quite honestly, the people in the 19th District of Texas believe
they are paying enough taxes. In fact, they believe that Congress
doesn't have an income problem. It has a spending problem. And it is
one that they are looking to our leadership to begin to solve. As was
alluded to a while ago, you cannot spend your way out of a deficit.
One of the things that concerns me most about this budget process is,
we are also going to be asked to vote on things we can't see right now,
but we are going to trust somebody. In other words, what we are going
to do is, we are going to be asked to vote on these appropriation
bills, and then in August the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
is going to tell us what we voted on.
You know what? The people in the 19th District of Texas voted to send
Randy Neugebauer to the United States Congress to review legislation,
review appropriations, determine whether they think that that is in
their best interest, and vote on it. And they kind of think that it
would be a good idea, before I voted on something, that I knew what was
in that piece of legislation. But yet we are going to have
appropriation bills where we are going to vote on those, and then
earmarks are going to be airdropped into those bills and mysteriously
are going to be revealed to all of us.
Can you imagine being in your home district and the paper calls you
up and says, ``I see what you voted on.'' And you say, ``I'm sorry. I
haven't read the paper this morning. I haven't seen what I have voted
on,'' because the earmarks were not disclosed in the bills that we are
considering. Now, I don't know about in your home district, but in my
home district that doesn't make a lot of sense.
What we need is transparency here. We have a lot of very smart people
in Congress, and while the chairman may believe he is a very smart
person, and he may be, I don't know, but I believe that I know more
about the 19th District and some of the priorities in that community
than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And the people in
the 19th District are relying on Randy Neugebauer to make sure that
that interest is represented here.
Now, one of the things that we have to begin to do is to do what we
said we were going to do. And this group, when they got the leadership,
they ran on a platform of we are going to be more transparent, that
people are going to get to see all of the spending bill at one time,
that they are not going to be in pieces and parts, and there are not
going to be deals cut in conference; that when these spending bills are
brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are going to
know what is in those bills. And that should be the way it is.
But now, as we get into this process, we find out that, no, that is
not the way it is going to be; that we have a new rule, and the new
rule is that we will let you know when it is time for you to know.
Well, you know what? The people in America think that the time for a
United States Congressman to know what is in a bill is not after he has
[[Page H6302]]
voted or she has voted on that bill, but while and before they voted on
that bill.
We said we were going to come down and bring these bills onto the
floor. We were going to look at them, peruse them, that we were going
to have time to look at them. And we have not kept that promise, and
that is a shame. It is a shame that the American taxpayers are getting
rooked with this appropriation process.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have been here in this Chamber for a long time, and I
was here in the minority back in the early 1980s when my colleagues
over there were running this place. They ran this place for 40 years.
For 40 years they ran this place, and they ran the budget right into
the ground and raised taxes and spent more money.
But they became reformed, like some ladies of the evening are
reformed. And they changed their spots and said, we have got to do
something about spending in the Congress because the Republicans took
over for 12 years, and they didn't like the way we ran this place. They
said we were spending too much money, and they went on a tirade time
after time, saying that they needed to be back in power because they
were going to be fiscally responsible, and they were going to control
spending, and they were going to do everything they did not do for 40
years when they had control.
I used to walk past my colleagues' offices when we were in charge,
and they had big signs out in front of their offices: Today the
national debt went up this much and today spending went up this much,
and it is all because of the Republicans, they were implying.
Well, they got control back and what has happened? They have
authorized $105.5 billion in new spending over the next 5 years. And
they complain because we want to cut $1.241 million out of this bill.
Just $1.241 million, not billions but a million. And you don't like
that. And we are keeping the spending at last year's level.
My colleagues on this side of the aisle do not want to vote for a
balanced budget amendment. They will tell you they want to balance the
budget. But when a balanced budget amendment comes to the floor, they
almost all vote against it because they know where their power lies,
and that is in spending and taxes, spending and taxes; and that is what
they are going to do.
The tax cuts that President Bush and this Congress, back in the early
part of the Bush administration, put in place, they want those tax cuts
to expire. And in Indiana alone, that means that most of the people in
my State will have a $2,200 per person tax increase because the tax
cuts expire. They want those to expire. They want to spend more money
like they are doing right now. They want to extend spending over the
next 5 years by $105 billion. And yet they are the fiscally responsible
people in this body.
I would just like to say to my colleagues and anybody else who is
paying attention that they really ought to look at history. They really
ought to look at what the Democrats said before they took power, and
then they ought to look very seriously at what they are doing right
now. They want more taxes. They want more spending. They want more
control. And that is exactly what they did the 40 years they had
control before the Republicans took office and the Bush administration.
There is no question that when we were in charge, we spent too much
money. But compared to them, we are pikers. And the American people are
going to find out once again how much these people spend and what big
spenders they are and what big taxers they are. It is going to happen.
Hopefully, the American people will get the message and put the right
people back in charge.
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from North
Carolina's amendment, and I too will echo the words of the gentleman
from Indiana that it is disappointing to see what we are doing here
tonight; when the American people spoke loud and clear last November
for transparency, for more openness in government, and what we have is
less transparency and less openness in government.
I think you will see tonight and tomorrow a series of amendments that
will try to strike that balance that the American people spoke so
loudly about in November.
Tax and spend is back. Today is just the beginning. I believe what we
will see in the next 11 appropriation bills is a lot more spending that
the American people are going to be very surprised about.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio's
yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he made.
I want to also echo how much I appreciate our colleague from Indiana,
who has been in the House for several years and came through a time
when the Democrats were in the majority. And as he points out, they
were in the majority for 40 years, and they did spend this country
almost into a situation where we could not get ourselves out of it. And
I appreciate his bringing that up again. We need to do it over and over
and over again, reminding the American people what they did.
I, frankly, thought that when they took the majority this time that
they would act differently as they had promised in the election. But we
now have what we know is a house of hypocrisy because they promised a
lot to the American people and they have not fulfilled those promises.
I have been particularly disappointed in the Blue Dogs. As somebody
has said, there are these charts all over our office buildings, and
they tell us over and over and over that the current Federal debt is
$8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every United States citizen, and
growing by $1 billion a day. But where are those Blue Dogs when we need
them? Where are they, calling for fiscal restraint? They are going
right along with their leadership, going ahead and increasing the
deficit every day and doing all that they can to increase the deficit.
I would like to know where they are and why they aren't being
responsible, as they promised they would be.
And I want to give us another quote to tie into what my colleagues
have been saying. This is from Speaker Pelosi in a floor speech she
made on January 7: ``After years of historic deficits, this new
Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new
deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity
for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.''
And yet, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, there
has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years
that has been authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year.
That doesn't sound to me like we are committed to a higher standard of
``pay as you go, no new deficit spending.''
I am also concerned about what this is doing to the American public
and how cynical it is making the people. They can't count on the
Democrats to do what they said they were going to do.
We have also heard tonight that we are trying to slow down the
process, and I checked about that in terms of what happened last year
on this bill. It took 2 full legislative days to debate this bill last
year during this process, and the Democrats offered over 70 amendments
to that bill. I find it really ironic that the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee now says to us, as the Republicans, that we
are trying to slow down the process when we are exercising our
responsibility as American citizens to try to slow down this incredible
spending that the Democrats want to do, increase the deficit, increase
taxes. They are saying to us, you are trying to slow down the process.
They wanted this week to do four complete appropriations bills. They
frittered away their time for 3 months, blamed it on the minority,
saying they are not in control of what is going on here.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about what we as
Members of the House owe the American public, what the people who elect
this House deserve and expect.
The first thing they deserve and expect is honest conversation. They
deserve fiscal responsibility. They deserve openness and transparency.
They deserve fairness from us.
[[Page H6303]]
Now, the bill in front of us, the appropriation bill in front of us
tonight, spends about $4.3 billion more than the same type of bill last
year. That is almost a 14 percent increase. If you look at where the
increase is, about $4 billion is in first responder grants. Now, that
would seem on the surface of it to be adequate and fair. That is
something that the American people might like. The first responders do
expect and deserve good treatment.
But when we understand from the past appropriation processes that
there is almost $5 billion left in this fund for first responders to
draw from that they have not yet taken out from past appropriations and
we go ahead and add $4 billion on top of it now, it causes the American
public to say, Why? What is it that we are getting?
The American public will stand for things that seem right and seem
justified, but in order to get the $4 billion to put into this fund,
our friends on the other side of the aisle are increasing taxes, the
second largest tax increase in American history.
Now, how is that important?
{time} 2045
I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico said it best:
Lowering taxes creates jobs. The corollary of that is also true;
raising taxes depresses jobs. Raising taxes stagnates the economy. It
does away with the vitality that any country is looking for.
So, when Ireland wanted to improve its economic state, it began to
lower taxes. When it lowered taxes on internal corporations, they had a
surge of growth. But when they lowered taxes on external corporations,
companies began to move to Ireland and create a grand, booming economy
and new jobs in Ireland, and for the first time in the Irish history
they have moved their economy tremendously forward because they cut
taxes.
Now, what we are doing in order to create the $4 billion in just this
one appropriations bill is to raise taxes. We are going to stagnate the
American economy. We have created an about 7.7 million jobs in the past
2 or 3 years. It has been an excellent economy, one that started off in
a recession, the recession that started at the end of the Clinton
years, and that recession then moved forward. And 9/11 shocked us into
the recession again; the Global Crossing scandal, the Enron scandal,
the WorldCom scandal that shocked us into recession even further. But
the Bush administration and this Congress passed two successive tax
cuts which began to revitalize the economy, and that revitalization is
now at risk because of the way that the Democrats in this Congress are
willing to put $4 billion into this one fund that has a surplus of over
$5 billion in it.
Now, the lady from North Carolina is taking a small attack on this
whole increase. She's saying, quite simply, let's just don't pay the
attorneys $1.2 million that they received. A $1.2 million increase is
not needed for attorneys. The people in this country need good-paying
jobs, they need a good economy, they need a sound economy and a good
government, and that good government is being denied in the guise of
providing another $4 billion into a fund that still has a surplus of
over $5 billion to it.
So, tonight I would recommend that we all look carefully at the lady
from North Carolina's amendment, and that we support it as the first
increment of many in reducing the cost of this particular bill.
The deficit spending for the government doesn't occur one large lump
at a time, it occurs one small piece at a time. And the lady from North
Carolina has adequately stated, let's just not do it. Let's level fund.
Let's fund at the same amount that we gave last year.
That is a reasonable thing for the American people to want to see.
The American people deserve and expect this fiscal responsibility, for
us to spend the money as if it were our own because they are trusting
us with it. They put us in a position of stewardship over that money,
and yet here we are throwing the money into a fund that is not being
spent adequately yet. And in order to get more money to put in there,
we are raising taxes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Well, we are right back doing what we said we were going to do
because we think it's important. We are talking about cutting back the
level of administrative costs that we had last year. And you know, for
a whole year, almost 2 years, the now majority, then minority, told us
what a lousy job the Department of Homeland Security was doing, and in
some ways I agreed with them. Well, I don't give raises to people who
do lousy jobs. I don't think that's the way you ought to do it. I don't
think you just automatically get a raise in this world, that your
department should automatically give an increase if you're not doing
the job. And in some areas I think a message needs to be sent that you
hold the line and do the job we paid you to do, and you will be doing
what we want you to do, and then we will talk about what your needs are
for the future.
But I think the present, going back to the 2007 budget numbers, is
the proper thing to do. I support the gentlelady's amendment. It is
about telling the American people that we are ready to tighten the belt
and show fiscal responsibility. We are not willing to push spending
levels so high, as this process is doing in the Democratic plan, to
where, once again, if you look at their budget, and it has been talked
about tonight over and over, if you look at it, it is an inevitable
road to a massive tax increase, which, quite frankly, as my friend from
New Mexico was saying, is not good for the United States.
So, once again, let's let the sunshine in. As the sun rises over the
mountain, let it shine on this appropriation bill. And let this
appropriation bill be open to all in the United States. And how do we
do that? Well, one thing we've got to do is we've got to talk with the
chairman; he has got to be convinced to put some light on the process
of earmarks.
And I want to make something very clear, Mr. Chairman, nobody on this
side of the aisle is fighting for their earmark. We are asking clearly,
whatever the process may be, we want to be able to see it so we can do
something about it. The American people told us, do something about
earmarks. We wrote a law that would work, the Democrats agreed, and now
all of a sudden the whole process is behind closed doors. And somebody,
and I am not sure exactly yet who, will be behind those doors to make
the decisions of how Member-initiated projects will be funded.
This debate is not about Member-initiated projects. The debate is
about letting us see, while we still have a chance to do something
about it, and don't airdrop this into committee where it can't be done.
I don't think this is hard to figure out. I think this is an easy
process, and that is a process that the chairman can work with us on
and come up with a solution for.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have sunshine upon the earmark
process. And if we get that, I think we will have what the American
people asked us for in the last election. It is very critical.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
You know, I tried listening to this debate and coming to a conclusion
that we were discussing something important. But here's my feelings: If
I was a highly paid Republican consultant, although that's redundant,
but if that's what I was, I would say to you guys you are making a
terrible mistake; somebody misinformed you on what bill this is. This
is not the Labor-H bill, where you would go after labor unions, which
you always do, where you would not care about funding programs for
education, which you always do, where you would leave children behind
for a long, long time.
I could understand if you did it there. If this was the VA-HUD bill,
I could understand all these desires to cut because, what the heck, you
send people to war, and then you don't want to fund the Veterans
Hospital Administration. I understand that. You don't want to do
housing. I understand that. If this was any other bill, I would
understand the strategy. But this is the bill that every right-winged
radio talk show host says you're the best on, homeland security,
protecting the homeland, making sure that there is never another
terrorist attack. And this gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price)
gives you a well-thought-out bill that takes care of the needs for
protecting the homeland, and you spend the last X amount of hours
trying to tear it apart because we are
[[Page H6304]]
spending too much time, and it is driving up the deficit.
Now, I don't know how many people were around when I spoke the last
time, and I reminded you that there is a deficit; a deficit created by
going into a war that was built on lies and bad information; a deficit
created by refusing to bring the troops home now, or soon, like we had
suggested, but keeping this war going and spending a lot more money; a
deficit created by reducing the taxes of the richest people in the
country, while squabbling over giving the little guy a minimum-wage
increase.
So, all I want to tell you today, as a friendly person and kind,
gentle-hearted person that I am, is that someone has given you some bad
information. This is not any of those other bills that you are known
for bashing. This is not the one that will leave children behind. This
is the one that is supposed to be the hallmark of your existence as a
party. This is national security. This is protecting the homeland. How
could you cut this bill?
But you know something? Mr. Price is right. If you are not going to
protect your administration's programs, then we are certainly not going
to waste a lot of time over here trying to debate you on it. So, go
ahead and destroy protecting the Homeland Security Department. Go ahead
and turn your back on securing the motherland. Go ahead and do it all.
We will just stand here and wait it out. It may take days, but there's
where you're heading.
Point of Order
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the rules of
the House state that all discussions must be directed towards the
Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
Mr. McHENRY. And Members should be reminded that discussions of
debate on the floor should abide by decorum and direct their comments
to the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is correct. Many Members
today have failed to live up to that rule. Members should be reminded
that remarks are to be directed to the Chair.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Chair.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I greatly appreciate the compassionate concern of the previous
speaker for the well-being of the Grand Old Party. It seems that
compassionate conservatism these days is far more contagious than many
expected and even I would have hoped. I will also tell you that
prolonged exposure to the speeches of Ronald Reagan will quickly cure
you of that.
I would also like to point out to the gentleman, through the Chair,
that he points out the rich Republican lobbyists that this town is so
awash in. Well, I have good news for him and bad news for the rich
Republican lobbyists that are more highly paid these days than the
Democrats, as they are now in the majority, which is why you will see
so many foreign cars driving around with Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers
on them in our Nation's Capital, if not in the Motor City where the UAW
might find them.
I was told that we are antilabor. As the grandson and son of union
members, whose voting record was better on CAFTA than 13 Members of the
new majority, I take umbrage at that statement. As the son of
schoolteachers, who has a good voting record on education matters, I
take umbrage at that. And in terms of voting to send our troops to war
and then not voting to fund our veterans, I would point out that in the
new majority there are those who voted to send our troops to war and
then voted not to fund our soldiers. So let us be careful with our
accusations and how we impugn one's motivations.
Interestingly, we are not content with the war overseas, and now we
see a case where we are going to engage in class warfare over here at
home at a very time when we should be united.
It is these types of situations that, when I try to explain
government and what I do to my wife and I's 10-year-old daughter
Amelia, that I spend a lot of time scratching my head, which would
explain my balding pate, because I find this place very frustrating.
To the gentleman, I know the majority has tried very hard to work on
this bill, and it has been called a ``delicate, well-thought-out
document.'' If that were the case, how can $1.2 billion be accepted in
such a facile fashion at the drop of a hat to simply pacify a minority
and to get them to stop addressing this bill? $1.2 million remains a
lot of money. And it would be, I would hope, wrong of people to
perceive that $1.2 million could either be taken from or put into a
bill simply for reasons of convenience and operations of the floor of
the United States House of Representatives.
But these are the problems that tend to come with governing, as my
own party found out. We got to sit in power for 12 years, some of us
for far less than that, and we watched and we watched and we watched as
the spending and the debt continued to mount and our Nation's taxpayers
and families and our party was no longer entrusted by the American
people to govern. But I remember at the time I would point out that a
lot of those appropriation bills that so many people decried throughout
that election were vastly bipartisan exercises in governance, and that
there were many votes on this side of the aisle for the excessive
spending, and many votes on the other side of the aisle for excessive
spending.
{time} 2100
The rub then came when the majority party at the time, our Republican
Party, was accused of spending too much on too many things and for
deficit spending.
Today we flash forward, and what do we find? We find a situation
where we have just recently passed a budget. I didn't vote for it. None
of my Republican colleagues voted for it. But it was duly passed.
What did that budget do? That budget promised billions in new
spending in reserve accounts. Billions in new spending. What else did
it promise? What else did it promise? It promised the largest tax
increase in American history to pay for it.
Now, today, as we go through this appropriation process, we see that
some of the promises they are attempting to keep in the new majority.
That would be the billions and billions in new spending. Does one not
believe that they are going to do everything they can to go through and
have the largest tax increase in American history to pay for it, or, in
the alternative, they will continue to see the deficit and the debt
mount?
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for
her wonderful amendment this evening.
Mr. Chairman, I am new to this body, and one thing I found is that in
Minnesota, we have a little bit different definition of
``transparency.''
``Transparency'' in Minnesota means an individual stands on one side
of a divide, and they can look through to see something on the other.
Here in the case of this bill, you have the taxpayer and you have
Members of Congress trying to look through a divide, and what they see
on the other side is a very interesting definition of ``transparency.''
Mr. Chairman, the first thing that they see is a slush fund for
earmarks. And this is something I don't quite understand; the Democrat
majority, they are leaving lump sums of money without a specified
purpose in legislation being considered by this House and then later
authorizing those funds for earmarks in a closed-door conference
committee. It is just a real interesting definition of transparency,
because the Democrats have created now, Mr. Chairman, a slush fund for
earmarks which will be funded by the largest tax increase in American
history. This is just so interesting to me, this new definition of
``transparency.''
Also a part of this definition is that earmarks will no longer be
allowed to be challenged here on this House floor because under the
Democrats' rules, Members will be prohibited from challenging
individual earmarks in bills on the floor or debating their merit as
long as there is a list of earmarks in the bill.
But what is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that it won't matter if
this list is flat-out wrong, if it is incomplete, or whether the
earmark which is one that a Member would like to debate is missing from
the list. It is just a real interesting definition of ``transparency.''
[[Page H6305]]
The ``truth in labeling'' that we are seeing in this bill is also
interesting, Mr. Chairman, because earmark-laden bills can now be
certified as earmark-free. Real interesting. I guess it depends on what
the meaning of ``free'' is.
Democrats will be allowing their bills to be certified by the
majority as earmark-free even if they contain earmarks. So as long as
you take a magic wand, Mr. Chairman, and wave it over the bill, you can
just say, ``Voila, it is now earmark-free.'' It is kind of like having
fat-free french fries. It is something we would all love to have, but
it just isn't possible. As long as any bill is certified by Chairman
Obey as earmark-free, then, under the House rules, it is earmark-free.
This rule was exploited earlier in February, Mr. Chairman, by the
House Democrats when they passed their continuing resolution that
contained hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded, hidden
earmarks, kind of like those fat-free french fries.
The largest tax increase in history, Mr. Chairman, is in the budget
that was passed by the House Democrats, and that will likely be the
story. Even though the majority likes to claim otherwise, they will
raise taxes by at least $217 billion, Mr. Chairman, in all likelihood
most likely $392 billion, and will raise marginal rates, except for the
10 percent rate, and capital gains rates and dividend rates and prevent
a full repeal of the death tax, items the American public have
indicated they are not for.
Speaker of the House Pelosi had said earlier that the budget should
be ``a statement of our National values.'' Well, not only is this
budget, Mr. Chairman, the largest in American history, it will sanction
the largest tax increase in history upon more American families,
because people in Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, my home State, will be
paying an average of more than $3,000 a year more to this town,
Washington, D.C. Again, a very interesting definition of
``transparency.''
The budget is going to trigger more tax hikes, and it will greatly
increase domestic spending. It will increase nondefense appropriations
by $23 billion above what we spent in 2007. That is in addition, Mr.
Chairman, to the $6 billion that the Democrats have already added to
the omnibus bill and more than $20 billion in the war supplemental.
The American people, Mr. Chairman, are very concerned as well about
the unlimited emergency spending, because the Democrat budget is going
to abandon the emergency set-aside that was established in last year's
budget resolution and change what Congress can call an emergency,
unlimited exemption, exempting the Senate spending bill from any
limits.
This is really, Mr. Chairman, putting the next election above the
next generation, something that none of us should want to do. The
Democrats in this bill, unfortunately, have ignored the warnings of the
entitlement crisis. Let's not forget, we have heard from the
Comptroller General David Walker.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Bachmann was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, the Democrat majority has once again
ignored the dozens of experts, including Chairman Greenspan, including
the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and also the Comptroller
David Walker, who have pleaded with us, pleaded, Mr. Chairman, with the
Congress and given us repeated warnings about the unsustainable rate of
entitlement spending.
This is our upcoming economic tsunami, Mr. Chairman. Their budget has
turned a blind eye to the impending crisis that is coming upon this
next generation. Who among us can look in the eyes of the next
generation, knowing what we know of the bill that will be handed to
them for the party that we are all having today? Unfunded net
liabilities. And yet we can stand here and do nothing to address the
concerns and put off any major reform for at least 5 years?
Now is the time, Mr. Chairman, to have true transparency, and I am
sad to say that this bill does none of that.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the
aisle, and I have been listening to this debate for the last 5 hours,
have lamented our efforts to highlight objections to not only this
bill, but also the underlying process by which all of the
appropriations bills, 11, and then 12 later on, will be brought to the
House floor this year.
I believe it is crucial that we take this opportunity to register our
strong opposition to the process, while I rise in support of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina's amendment to cut $1.2 billion out of
this homeland security appropriations bill, and that is not a small
chunk of change. But it is a process which we believe is neither fair
nor open nor in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
Late last year the new majority in this House assured the American
public that it would bring transparency and openness to the
appropriations process and specifically to this practice which we and
the general public very well know now, as they campaigned on this issue
last fall, the practice of earmarking.
At a minimum we believe that this commitment, and I think the
American people believe as well, or they wouldn't have gained the
majority, that it would equal that of the Republican majority in the
last Congress, that the sponsors of earmarks would be identified in the
bills themselves, whether they were authorizing bills, appropriations
bills, indeed even in narrowly drawn tax bills, so that Members could
debate and challenge those earmarks if they were found to be egregious
on the House floor. Apparently the Democratic majority has very
different definitions of ``transparency'' and ``openness'' than we do
and than the American people do that elected them to this new majority.
The respected chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman
from Wisconsin, how long has he been in this body, 39 years? I think he
is going on his 20th term. He has been a former member of and chairman
of the Appropriations Committee. He is one of the most respected
Members, one of the most knowledgeable Members. He clearly knows what
he is doing in regard to not putting these earmarks in the
appropriations bill, which he knew would be coming to this floor under
an open rule so that we could have a free, a fair, an open debate.
We would accept some earmarks. They are not all bad. Certainly they
are not all bad. But the ones that are egregious, that we should have
an opportunity to debate on both sides of the aisle and strike.
Now, the chairman has said, well, you know, we are going to go ahead
after we finish all these bills, these 11 bills, we are going to
publish all of the earmarks that we are considering airdropping in the
conference report. They are going to have transparency. They are going
to see the light of day, because we are going to put them in the
Congressional Record 2 months from now, in August.
But that does not give the Members of this body on either side of the
aisle an opportunity. Yes, you can see them, and maybe it will remove
the opportunity for the Senate to use a point of order to strike some
of these amendments that have been airdropped because all of a sudden
they have been published in the Congressional Record. That is not the
same as having the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on the floor to debate
and to vote up or down some of these egregious earmarks.
Now, what I want to suggest in my time remaining, I want to suggest
to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why don't you simply
then in August bring a bill?
The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair held in response to the gentleman from
North Carolina previously, Members must address the Chair and not other
Members. In the same vein, the Chair must correct the gentleman from
Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that very easily a package of
these earmarks, I don't know how many are going to be put in the final
conference report; if there are 30,000 earmarks, maybe 15,000 of them
in the aggregate in these 11 bills will be published in the
Congressional Record and then eventually airdropped in the conference
report.
Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a bill or resolution through
the
[[Page H6306]]
Appropriations Committee could come to the floor of this House under an
open rule, and let us at that point take each one of those earmarks,
maybe specified for each of the 11 appropriations bills, and then have
our opportunity to vote up or down.
I have been listening to the debate, again, like I said, for a couple
or 3 or 4 hours, and nobody has made that suggestion. So I want to try
to improve the process, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make that
suggestion to the Democratic leadership and to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. It is not too late to do the right thing. We
feel like you have done the wrong thing and shut the process down. It
is not what the people want, but it is not too late to see the error.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, again, the comments that these are
dilatory amendments, the subcommittee chairman from North Carolina
saying, well, you want to strike a little bit of change here and there,
and you are just trying to slow the process down. In some cases, yes.
In some cases, like the amendment that we are discussing right now, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentleman from Washington Mr.
Reichert, who is a ranking member on the subcommittee, these are not
dilatory amendments. These are important policy amendments.
But we are outraged by the policy. And to take my time and make the
suggestion of what you can do to correct this, I hope you will take
that to heart. I hope the chairman, Mr. Chairman, will take that to
heart and give us an opportunity, if not now, at least in August, to
vote on these earmarks. That is exactly what you promised the American
people, and you need to deliver on that promise.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to remind Members, as the gentleman
from North Carolina pointed out, that remarks are to be addressed to
the Chair.
The Chair will admonish Members not to direct remarks to other
Members, to the Democratic leadership, or anyone other than the Chair.
It is not that the Chair wants all of the attention, but the gentleman
from North Carolina has insisted on the rules, and the Committee will
abide by them.
{time} 2115
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and I commend
the gentlewoman from North Carolina for presenting this issue.
The hour is getting late, but I think it is extremely helpful and
extremely clarifying for those watching to appreciate that there is a
distinction between the different folks rising this evening and drawing
attention to the amount of spending.
The gentleman who is presenting this bill said in all sincerity that
this bill wasn't about earmarks and it wasn't about ideology. Well, Mr.
Chairman, I would beg to differ. It is all about ideology, and it
certainly has a lot to do with earmarks.
The ideology we talk about being present in this bill and every other
appropriations bill that I have seen that has been filed so far is that
there is one side that believes that spending ought to increase to a
fare-thee-well. And there is the other side which believes there ought
to be responsibility to that spending.
We have already seen the majority party, so far this year, increase
authorization for spending by over 50 billion new dollars. We have
already seen the new majority adopt a budget which has, depending on
who you talk to, the largest tax increase, or the second largest tax
increase, in the history of our Nation. That tax increase is to pay for
the spending.
So, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is all about ideology. It is also about
earmarks because what we have been presented is a new policy by the
majority party that allows for a slush fund, a slush fund for earmarks
in virtually any appropriations bill that comes to the floor.
So I commend my colleague from Georgia who spoke just before me and
offered a solution, an opportunity to bring greater sunshine and
greater light to those earmarks. I think that was a well-thought-out
proposal.
I suspect there are people watching and saying, what is it that we
desire? Why is it that we are drawing attention to what we believe to
be an egregious rule? Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest what we
desire is a decrease in irresponsible spending. It is that
irresponsible spending that is causing tax bills for Americans to mount
up to unacceptable levels. And, consequently, we believe the slush fund
for earmarks ought to be done with, ought to go away. The American
people ought to know who is spending their hard-earned tax money, and
they ought to be able to hold those folks accountable.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the solution to the dilemma in
which we currently find ourselves is to have the chairman of
Appropriations or somebody in leadership on the majority side say, we
won't do that, we won't bring about any earmarks in a conference
committee that aren't agreed to by each and every Member of the House
individually. Individually, that's what we proposed. In fact, that is
what we enacted in our own bill, in our own rules last session.
Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to this. There is an opportunity
for us to move onward and make it so the American people are able to
have their say, to have each and every one of their Representatives
have their say about the kind of spending that is going on here in
Washington.
And it is not just our side. If you take the words of the Members of
the new majority from the not-too-distant past, after the recent
election, when the the majority leader said, ``We are going to adopt
rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't
legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other Members can
see what is being done.'' That is a quote.
Here is another quote. ``Words will not do it. I have a good
relationship with Representative Roy Blunt. I have a good relationship
with Representative John Boehner. We'll work together. We'll include
them in decision-making.
``To the extent that we create an atmosphere of mutual respect, the
American people will feel more comfortable with Congress.''
Mr. Chairman, I suspect you know what I know, and that is that the
recent data on the respect with which the American people hold this
Congress and this majority is at an all-time low. And I would suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons that it is at an all-time low is
because of the kind of policies that are being put into place by this
majority that make it so that light cannot shine on the amount of
spending that is being done in this Congress.
I urge adoption of the amendment. I urge a change to the earmark
policy.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
First, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her
amendment. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed by
some comments I have heard from the other side of the aisle that
somehow this is not a worthy debate. I believe one of my colleagues
said, I thought I would come to the floor and find us debating
something important.
How we spend the people's money, how much money we take from
hardworking Americans is a very important matter. How much of the bread
we take off of the table of that hardworking teacher in Malakoff,
Texas, is a very important matter. How much money we take from the
fireman, the fireman in Crandall, Texas, who is working to ensure our
safety, and how much of the bread we take off of his table is a very
important matter, Mr. Chairman. And not just how much money, but once
we take that money, how we spend that money.
We know that the people, the people, decry how the practice of
earmarks has been practiced in this House. And I wished when the
Republicans were in the majority we would have done a better job. I was
often disappointed. I, myself, don't request earmarks, although I know
there are many that are worthy.
But at least when this party was in the majority, they woke up and
heard the voices of people and said, we need reform. We need
accountability. We need transparency. And Members were
[[Page H6307]]
given that ability to focus sunlight, sunshine, on those earmarks, and
they were allowed a process by which to strike them from the bill.
Now I read a number of quotes from our new Democrat majority
leadership. The Speaker said, ``I would just as soon do away with
them,'' referring to earmarks. She said shortly after becoming Speaker,
``We have placed a moratorium on earmarks until a new reform process is
in place to ensure the integrity of every earmark that is funded.'' A
new reform process.
So now we discover, Mr. Chairman, that the new reform process is to
take it out of the sunshine, hide it in the darkness, take away
Members' ability to strike it from the bill, and give that, albeit
apparently, to one individual who apparently is all knowing, all
seeing, and all powerful when it comes to these earmarks.
I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people will sit
idly by for this practice. Already the Third Estate is letting the
people know what is going on. I don't want to personalize the debate,
but let me paraphrase from the Wisconsin State Journal. I won't talk
about individual Members, but I will talk about the majority.
The Wisconsin State Journal: The Democrats are, and I paraphrase,
``now dodging the very reforms they helped to generate.'' This will
``prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until
it is too late.'' Wisconsin State Journal, June 7.
The Cleveland Plain Dealer, ``Five months after,'' and again I
paraphrase, the Democrat majority, ``took control, the promises remain
unfulfilled.'' And what we have, ``That's a secretive process, and its
final product gets a `yes' or `no' vote in each Chamber. This means
earmarks will sail through before the press or even most Members of
Congress can examine or challenge them.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer of
June 10.
The Mobile, Alabama, Press Register. ``Democrats work ATM,''
automatic teller machine. ``But now that they control the ATM, the
Democrats are finding all sorts of excuses to keep the earmark
dispenser open for business. Democrats are reneging on their vows of
fiscal responsibility just a few months after they won their chance to
load the ATM.'' The Mobile Press Register, June 8.
And the list goes on and on and on.
Mr. Chairman, there ought to be a message loud and clear from the
last election. The people want to reform earmarks. This bill, this
Democrat majority, this process, takes us in the exact opposite
direction, and it is one more reason we need to support the
gentlewoman's amendment.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think at this time of night, it is good to remind
those who might have been watching or listening why we are here. First,
this bill is $2 billion over the President's request. So it is spending
that we simply cannot justify moving forward with.
The second reason we are here debating and still on, I think, the
first paragraph of the bill is that the majority has decided to keep
earmarks secret until this bill passes and until we get to the
conference report when it will be too late to amend or to strike or to
challenge those individual earmarks. That is why we are here.
The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has said
that if this process does not go well, we may just have to get rid of
earmarks completely. That would be wonderful. I would gladly sit down
for the rest of the appropriations season if we were to do that.
But if we are not going to get rid of earmarks completely, at least
we should have a process that even the majority party has said that we
need, one that has transparency, one where we actually know what is in
the bills, one that has both transparency and accountability.
If you have transparency, if you have Members' names next to earmarks
and an indication what entity that earmark is to support, that is a
good thing. That is an element of transparency, and it is a good thing
that the Democrats put that in their reform bill in January. It was a
good move, and I think all of us applaud them for it.
But what good is transparency if you don't have accountability with
it? What good is it to know which name is next to an earmark if that
request letter is just buried over at the Appropriations Committee? And
none of us have seen them; there are some 30,000 earmark request
letters sitting over in the Appropriations Committee.
The distinguished chairman said last year that we simply had gotten
out of control with earmarks and there is no way, with the staff that
we have, to police these earmarks. He was right. He was right. If you
don't believe him, you can ask a couple of the Members who are in
prison today. We simply haven't policed that process very well.
I would submit it is beyond reason that the Appropriations Committee
and its staff can alone police 30,000-some earmark requests. It is
simply impossible. So why not release those letters and let the other
Members see them? Some 30,000, if you do the math, that amounts to 73
earmarks or so per Member. You can't expect the Appropriations
Committee to police those earmarks. It is beyond them.
I think they make a valiant attempt, and that is great, but it is
simply beyond reason that you can police that many earmarks. So release
them. Let others see them. Let outside groups and others help in that
regard instead of keeping those earmark requests secret, and keeping
earmarks out of the bills until those bills pass and then drop them in
at a time when it is too late to challenge them.
If you want transparency, that's great. Let's have it. Let's also
have accountability. That is what we want with this process, and that
is why we are here tonight. That is why we are only on the first
paragraph of this very large bill.
I would suspect until we reach an agreement that either we will have
no earmarks, which would be the best in my view, until we reach that
kind of agreement; or we will proceed under a different fashion, we
will say we are going to have real accountability, real transparency,
I think we are going to have this same kind of activity.
{time} 2130
Because I think that this institution deserves better. Certainly the
taxpayers deserve better than the process that they have been given
over the past several years.
So I'm pleased that the gentlewoman has offered this amendment. I do
support it. There will be many more amendments, I believe, tonight. I
plan to offer others myself.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
We've had a long discussion tonight about my colleague from North
Carolina's amendment. I certainly thank her for offering it. I think
we've had a healthy debate about the size and scope of government.
I think what the American people understand, Mr. Chairman, is that we
should have this debate on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, our
colleagues should have this grand debate about whether or not to
increase the size and scope of government, even in areas of grave
national importance. This is a serious debate. This is a very serious
debate, and I think the American people should be proud of the kind of
debate we're having today on the House floor.
As a conservative, I can see that there's waste, fraud and abuse in
all areas of government, even in the Department of Homeland Security. I
think we should be wise with how we spend the taxpayer dollar, even in
the Department of Homeland Security.
Even if this President requested tons more money, billions more
money, as a conservative I would say, no, Mr. President, we don't need
those billions of dollars in new spending. And I must tell you, as a
conservative I've been outspoken, trying to hold this President
accountable when it comes to spending.
Yet my Democrat colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would say the President
requested money, more money for the Department of Homeland Security. I
think that was valid in this time of war, in this time of great
national security issues.
The President requested more money for intelligence spending; yet
this Democrat majority in this House, Mr. Chairman, said no to the
President's increase when it came to intelligence spending. Instead,
Mr. Chairman, the majority decided to spend intelligence money on this
debate about climate
[[Page H6308]]
change, about global warming. I'm not exactly sure, Mr. Chairman, what
this majority was thinking when they allocated intelligence resources,
intelligence money to the debate on global warming, but they did. They
said that was just.
When the President requested more money for homeland security, a $3
billion increase over last year's funds, the Democrats said that is not
enough, and they went $2 billion over that. Mr. Chairman, even in
Washington, D.C., $2 billion is a lot of money.
We know that the Department of Homeland Security's well funded, and
what we're having a debate on here today, tonight, Mr. Chairman, is
whether or not we should lard up the Department of Homeland Security
with more bureaucrats at the top level; not people that are screening
the airports at the lowest level, not people who are out gathering
intelligence at the lowest level, but they're larding it up for the
Secretary's budget, for the management's budget. They're not allocating
money to get it out on the streets. They're allocating money for more
bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. And as a conservative, even if
it's a Republican in the White House and a Republican administration, I
will say no to that. We don't need more bureaucrats here in Washington,
D.C.
We need more agents out on the streets tracking terrorists. We need
more intelligence capabilities out in the streets, catching the bad
guy, finding out what they're doing, how they're plotting and planning
against us. That's the debate we should have here on this House floor,
Mr. Chairman. That's the debate the American people want and deserve.
Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate about how we're going to
allocate our homeland security dollars. Should we put it with more
bureaucrats sitting in an office in Washington, D.C., or should we
spend that money in a better way, to make sure when you go to the
airport you have an airport screener, somebody to get you through that
line effectively, people that are well-trained to track the bad guys
through our intelligence capabilities, that actually have good plans in
place if, God forbid, heaven forbid, we have another attack? We don't
need more money for bureaucrats in Washington. We need more funding to
get the bad guys.
Mr. Chairman, we have a serious debate here tonight, and I think this
has been a very worthy debate of this House. My friends and colleague,
Mr. Chairman, have all stated their opinions tonight, and I think
there's a good consensus from the American people, good consensus from
the American people that we need to cut spending to a greater degree.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, the 110th Congress now under Democrat leadership, we're
6 months into this Congress now. If you think about it, that's one-
quarter of the way toward the completion of this term. The American
public at home should be thinking, what has this new Democrat
leadership wrought in many different areas?
What has it wrought? The largest tax increase in U.S. history, the
breaking of promises during the campaign of openness, the repealing of
transparency that the previous majority had instituted, repealing of
the openness in the area of earmarks and budget process reform.
And now on top of that, on top of the largest tax increase in
history, on top of the repealing of transparency and openness, slush
funds, slush funds in the very appropriations bills that the majority
campaigned on that they would bring a new air of relief to this House.
The other side has said they were trying to slow down the process,
that the amendments that we make are not about the bills. Well, Mr.
Chairman, this bill is a homeland security bill, and as long as I have
breath, I will come to this floor and speak about trying to improve
homeland security in the legislation that passes this House.
I represent a district that was tremendously impacted by 9/11. I do
not go to a county in my district where I do not meet victims of 9/11
or family members or people who did business with or are related with
victims of 9/11.
While the rest of the world and the rest of this country may see 9/11
as something that is going by year after year and less and less part of
their lives, mine is a district that remembers it every day. Mine is a
district that remembers it every year still on its anniversary.
So, homeland security legislation, and amendments such as this one
which work to try to improve that legislation, are incredibly important
to me. And more important than that, it is incredibly important to my
district.
This piece of legislation that's before us deals with the financial
aspect of homeland security. Quite candidly, this is not just a matter
of dollars and cents when we talk about dollars and what we spend here
in Washington. What we spend here impacts upon the Federal budget, but
more important than that, it impacts upon the family budget.
What the average family in Bergen County, Sussex County, Passaic
County, Warren County have to do every day in their lives in order to
get by is impacted by what we do on this floor and what we will do on
this amendment later on tonight on how much we spend. It may be vast
numbers here in Washington, but it is dollars and cents back at home.
I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee, and on that
committee for the 4-plus years that I've been here, I felt there was
one thing that both sides of the aisle generally agreed to, I thought,
and that was that we have a problem in this country with regard to our
deficit. The difference, however, is on how to resolve that issue.
The one side, as we see now in control, sees that problem and
continues to exacerbate it by spending more, more than the President
asked for, more than this side of the aisle would suggest is needed,
more than the American public would think that we should be spending on
the American Federal budget.
We had looked to the other side after this last election to give us
relief and give us reform, and what did they give us instead? The
largest tax increase in history and significant spending on top of
that. I guess the two really go hand in hand. If you are going to
enlarge budgets without end, well, you're going to have to look back to
the American public and ask them to dig ever deeper into their pockets,
into their wallets and send it here to Washington. You're going to have
to ask the American public to send their hard-earned tax dollars to
Washington to spend on bureaucrats in offices and other such matters as
opposed to allowing the American public to keep it for themselves, for
their health care need, for their children's education, for their food
and their housing.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman
for her amendment, even though the amount that she's looking to reduce
in the scheme of things is merely a de minimis amount as we look at it
here in Washington.
But let me tell you when we get home and we are able to tell them
that we were able to start the process of returning the dollars back to
you, the American taxpayer, and still provide the significant and
essential homeland security that is vastly important to the people in
my district, they will say to this side of the aisle and to the other
side of the aisle as well that they agree with us; job well done.
Amendment Offered by Mr. McHenry to Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms.
Foxx
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry to amendment No. 33
offered by Ms. Foxx:
Strike ``$1,241,000''
Replace with ``$8,961,000''
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is a second-
degree amendment to my colleague from North Carolina's amendment to the
bill.
This second-degree amendment is very simple, very straightforward.
Instead of striking $1,241,000 from this legislation in the Secretary
of Homeland Security's personal budget for his office, we've increased
that number to actually $8.9 million.
[[Page H6309]]
What this amount difference is a result of the debate we've had here
on the floor. What is very good is that we've had an open debate, an
open rule, one of the rare that we've had in this new Democrat
majority, Mr. Chairman. This open rule has allowed a free form of
debate, which has allowed all my colleagues to engage in this
discussion about decreasing the size and scope of government and
curbing the excess of the growth of bureaucracy here in Washington.
As a result of this debate, I've analyzed the last amendment debates
we had. My colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) offered an
amendment that would take the Secretary's budget back to the 2007
level. His amendment would reduce the spending by $9,961,000. Well,
that amendment failed, unfortunately. I'm very happy, though, that my
colleague from California offered it, though, because the House got to
vote on fiscal discipline, and 201 Members of this body voted in favor
of striking that $9,961,000 from the bill. Unfortunately, though, 221
voted ``no,'' so the amendment failed.
Well, watching the last series of votes, I also noticed that our
colleagues voted to strike $79,000 from the Secretary's budget, as well
as $300,000 from the Secretary's budget, which through this debate I
really analyze that. I really had to think about those votes and see
what the will of the body was on restraining government spending and
the rise in growth and the bureaucracy here in Washington.
{time} 2145
What I realized is that maybe my colleagues weren't ready to cut $9.9
million. But perhaps, just perhaps, we could try this out and see if my
colleagues would cut $8.9 million. Now, it's not quite as much as I
would like to cut from the fat of the Secretary's budget, but it's
close. It's a savings to the taxpayers.
So let's try this out. Let's have a vote on this; let's have a debate
on whether or not we can cut $8.9 million from a budget, if I may
state, from a budget as proposed in this Chamber of $36 billion, if I
have that correct. Can we cut $8.9 million from a $36 billion budget?
Well, my colleagues, 221 of them said ``no'' to this cutting $9.9
million. Let's see if they will cut $8.9 million; it's close, and it's
$1 million. The American taxpayers understand the difference in $1
million. But if we could cut $8.9 million, I think we would be happy.
It would be a step in the right direction.
I hope my colleagues concur.
My colleagues would say ``yes'' to cutting $300,000 from this $36
billion bill. They cut $300,000. They cut $79,000. But I wonder if my
colleagues would, instead of cutting $1.2 million, which my colleague
from North Carolina seeks to do, if they would cut $8.9 million.
Let's try this out. Let's have a debate on whether or not $8.9
million is enough money to cut from this $36 billion bill. Let's see if
we can return that money to the taxpayers. Let's see if we can reduce
the deficit so we can balance this budget. Let's see if we can cut
spending so we can continue the tax cuts and continue the economic
growth that we have seen over the last 5 years. Let's see if we can
make sure that the American taxpayers get to keep more of what they
earn. Let's see if we can cut off some fat, even just a little fat from
the Department of Homeland Security. Let's see what we can do to reduce
bureaucracy here in Washington.
I am not sure if $8.9 million is the right amount, but I would like
to hear from my colleagues to see if they agree or if they disagree.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McHenry was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. McHENRY. I would like to hear from my colleagues on whether or
not $8.9 million, $8,961,000 is the right amount to cut from this $36
billion bill. I'd love to hear this debate. Some may say it's 10
million, others may say it's 6 million. Let's have this debate. It's
only 10 minutes till 10:00 tonight.
We have plenty of time to continue this debate. The American
taxpayers can watch us here on C-SPAN and see what good work we are
doing here in Washington and see if we are being effective with their
dollars.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a modest
reality check. I hope that's helpful.
The gentleman from North Carolina gives an impression of great
precision in wanting to cut $8,961,000, and he suggests that we might
want to debate tonight whether that's exactly the right figure. He
suggests that without indicating, as far as I can tell, any fact or any
premise on which this very precise number is based. So we will await
that with interest, exactly why this much and no more and no less.
Let me offer a little reality check in the form of the language from
the committee report. Our committee recommended $14 million for the
general counsel.
By the way, that's the start of understanding this. This isn't about
bureaucracy, in general. It's not about government fat, in general. It
certainly has nothing to do with entitlements. It's not even about the
Secretary's office, in general. This is about the general counsel's
office at the Department of Homeland Security. This figure was arrived
at after close consultation with that office. We recommended $14
million for the Office of General Counsel.
Now, we didn't give them everything they wanted. President Bush
requested $1.2 million above this. We cut that. We did not grant that
full amount.
Now, 77 staff, 77 is what that appropriation pays for or would pay
for. That's equal to the current on-board strength. We do say in the
report, and maybe the gentleman disagrees with this, that as vacancies
arise in the office, the committee directs the Department to fill the
vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal law.
Now, CFIUS, you might remember, is the Committee on Foreign
Investments in the United States, better known by reference, perhaps,
to the Dubai ports deal. You will remember a great deal of discussion
in this body on both sides of the aisle on how CFIUS needs to be beefed
up and do a better job. We don't want to have another Dubai ports deal.
That's what we are responding to in consultation with the Department.
They need some positions dedicated to those CFIUS reviews so that we do
them right. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something
wrong with the number 77?
That's the rationale. Since nobody else has provided it, I will.
That's the rationale for what the committee has done here, as we said,
not granting everything that the administration wanted, but trying to
make certain that the staff has the strength they need to fulfill their
present obligations and to move in this new direction which CFIUS has
provided. I hope that's helpful.
Mr. TERRY. I move to strike the last word.
I do appreciate the gentleman's secondary or second-degree amendment.
The good chairman stood up and gave an eloquent argument about what the
primary and secondary amendment is not about. But what it is about, in
my opinion, is the hypocrisy in two different areas, the hypocrisy of
having boards out front of their offices talking about the mounting
debt and then the first appropriation bill increasing the discretionary
spending by 13.6 percent. Then, also, the hypocrisy of talking about a
culture of corruption and how it spills over to earmarks.
Well, the way to cure that is transparency. The first appropriation
bill out of the block hides them so we can't debate them on the House
floor. That's what this is about. This is why we're upset and coming to
the floor and discussing this issue. I'm very frustrated with this
process of hiding these earmarks.
Well, they are not being hidden, they are just not being included in
this bill so they can be dropped in at a later date, at a time when we
don't have an opportunity to review them and determine them on an
individual basis, the merits or lack of merit for any specific project
listed. That's atrocious.
What's mostly atrocious and frustrating and hypocritical about it is
the fact that these folks campaigned on reforming that, and they were
the ones to throw out all the good forms of transparency so they can
hide them from us.
That's wrong, and that's why we're down here. That's why we're down
here, to show our frustration with blowing the lid off the spending now
[[Page H6310]]
and hiding these earmarks at a time when the people want to know what
we're doing with earmarks here. They want them to stop. At the very
least, they want to make sure that they're valid ones and not Members'
pet projects.
Now, the gentleman from North Carolina with the second-degree
amendment, you indicated you wanted to expand what Chairman Price
mentioned as well.
I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding.
Let me answer the chairman's questions, because I do appreciate my
colleague's leadership, and he has crafted, largely, a good bill.
My disagreements are oftentimes with my Republican administration, my
colleague in the White House who is of my same party. What they have
requested here is a good bit more bureaucracy at the top.
Let's face it, they have mismanaged the Department of Homeland
Security. Look at the response to Katrina. I agree wholeheartedly with
my Democrat colleagues. But I am of the opinion that simply because
they have mismanaged does not simply mean you add to their budget.
I appreciate my colleagues' clapping. I appreciate my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle clapping for me. That is so wonderful. I am
excited about that. I am hopeful they will vote for my amendment,
especially my good friends back there.
But let me tell you something. What I am attempting to do is get the
numbers back to last year's spending level, to make sure we maintain
this. My colleague from North Carolina said he spoke with the
administration and realized that they wanted this amount of money. I
have spoken with the taxpayers. They want some more of their money
back. They don't want to deal with tax increases.
We need to get back to closer to last year's spending levels on
management of the bureaucracy. We saw how the border is still porous.
Let's put that money into the border.
We see how FEMA was mismanaged. Let's pour that money into getting
people out there with supplies when catastrophic events come. But let's
not spend on our bureaucracy here in Washington. Let's bring those
numbers back closer to last year's budget levels.
Mr. TERRY. Thank you for your explanation. I think, coming here with
amendments that cut the amount of this bill, even if we can reduce it
from 13.6 to 13 percent or down to something reasonable like the rate
of inflation, 2 or 3 percent or 4 percent, then at least that puts it
in the realm of what's reasonable. But this hypocrisy is just really
frustrating me.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I was watching this debate on my television in the office. I am not
sure whether I was watching C-SPAN or the Twilight Zone.
When I hear some of our colleagues come to the floor and express
their concern over earmarks, my question is, what is so important? I
will yield to anyone on the other side. What is so important about any
specific earmark that you have that it has to be rushed to passage
tonight, that it cannot stand the scrutiny of this body?
If you can tell us what specific earmark you have requested that
should not be studied, if my colleagues will remember, the problem was
not that we studied earmarks; the problem is that they were bulldozed
to passage without proper scrutiny, without proper vetting.
Well, guess what, we are running an intervention here. We are going
to save you from yourselves. We are not going to allow you to continue
to bulldoze these earmarks.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to allow them to continue
to rush these earmarks to passage without the proper scrutiny and to
make sure the American people never again have to read headlines of
Members who are incarcerated because of abusive earmarks. We will not
tolerate those abuses.
So I would ask, I would yield time to the gentleman if will tell us
specifically what earmarks he feels so passionate about that he has
requested that should be passed tonight rather than being scrutinized
by the professionals of the Appropriations Committee and debated.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to entertain this
question. I thank my colleague for yielding.
I would say this. We have no idea what the earmarks are in this bill,
because they are not in the bill.
Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time. I will yield to the gentleman if he
can publicize for us tonight what specific earmarks he has requested.
Mr. McHENRY. You are asking the same question. We are asking because
we don't see any earmarks in this bill because you intend to drop them
in during a private meeting.
Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time.
I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer this question. Does
the gentleman know what earmarks he submitted to the committee?
{time} 2200
Mr. McHENRY. Yes, none.
Mr. ISRAEL. Does the gentleman from Nebraska know what earmarks he's
submitted to the committee?
Mr. TERRY. Yes. I did not submit any.
Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time. The gentleman has requested no
earmarks in any appropriations bill on any appropriations bill? I'll
yield to the gentleman. Ever.
Mr. McHENRY. Yes, I have, and I publicized it at home. I publicize
the ones I do ask.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the time.
Mr. ISRAEL. I will reclaim my time. The gentleman who has railed
about the evil of earmarks has just acknowledged that he has requested
earmarks. I would ask the gentleman what earmarks has he requested that
are so important that they should not be studied by the Appropriations
Committee so that we avoid the abuses of the last Congress? I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. McHENRY. I ask for full public scrutiny, not just a private
meeting between party leaders in this body.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. The gentleman still has
not told us what earmark that he has requested is so vitally important
that it should not be scrutinized.
Mr. BACHUS. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. ISRAEL. I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer my
question about what specific earmarks he has requested that are so
important that they cannot be scrutinized. I will yield to the
gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has just declined to yield to the
gentleman from Alabama. He has said he would yield to the gentleman
from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Has the gentleman yielded?
Mr. ISRAEL. I am yielding to the gentleman if he can answer my
question.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, his question is impossible to answer.
Under the rules of this House that the Democrats have written, they do
not publicize the earmarks requested by Members.
Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman to tell us, despite what he
may, his interpretation of the rules, whether he knows what earmarks he
has requested. He said he does know what earmarks he has requested.
I then asked him, Mr. Chairman, to share that information and explain
why these should not be studied to avoid the kinds of abuses and jail
sentences that occurred in the past, Mr. Chairman.
I will yield back to the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is
recognized on the secondary amendment. Having not spoken on the
secondary amendment, the gentlewoman is entitled to recognition for 5
minutes.
The gentlewoman yields to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. I thank the Chairman, and let me attempt to answer the
question.
The question is really not whether the gentleman from North Carolina
objects to an earmark. It's not whether the gentleman from New York is
for an earmark.
Really, this is the people's House, and it's really up to the people
to make the final judgment on each and every
[[Page H6311]]
one of these earmarks, and the people simply don't know what these
earmarks are. This is the people's House, and we've been told there are
earmarks in this bill, there will be earmarks added in conference.
We're told that the professionals on the Appropriations Committee are
reviewing these earmarks. They're making a determination. That's what
it's about.
I grew up in Birmingham, and there was a Scripps Howard newspaper in
Birmingham, and it had a searchlight on the front page. I'm sure some
of you had a Scripps Howard newspaper in your community, and that was
the truth going out, the light.
The gentleman from North Carolina says he doesn't know anything about
these earmarks. I don't know anything about these earmarks. The
gentleman from New York may know all about them. The chairman of the
committee may know about them. But really, the truth is that who ought
to know, and who has a right to know and a right to make that judgment
in each and every case is the people we represent, the people of the
United States. It's their money. It's not our money.
And that's what's so wrong with this process tonight. We are arguing
among ourselves that this Member doesn't have the right, or this Member
knows more than this Member, when the truth is it's the American people
that have the right to know. They have the right to disclosure. This is
their House. This is their money. And they have the right to make
decisions about each and every one of these earmarks that some of us
know about and some of us don't know about.
Now, I would say this. The American people don't know how many
earmarks are in this bill or how many earmarks will be in this bill.
We're going to be asked to pass, we represent, we each represent, 6-,
700,000 citizens, and we're going to be asked tomorrow or the next day
to vote on this bill, to vote ``yes'' or ``no.''
We've already been told there will be earmarks added to the
appropriation bill, but it won't be until all the bills are passed that
they'll go to conference, and a few select Members, representing
probably 10 percent of the American people, they will add the earmarks.
The American people will not ever know what these earmarks are until
they're passed into law.
Now, you know, I will tell the gentleman from New York, I don't care
if you tell me about the earmarks.
Announcement By the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BACHUS. I care about the American people. They have a right to
know. They have a right to disclosure.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Let me, once again, not that anyone on the other side of the aisle is
interested in listening to facts, but let me, once again, cite what the
facts are. We keep hearing this mythical, robotic claim from the other
side of the aisle that somehow these earmarks are going to be dropped
in in conference.
Well, it is not our fault that you couldn't finish the budget last
year and we had to finish your work. It is not our fault that you
couldn't finish the work on the Iraqi bill for 2007, so we had to spend
the last 3 months cleaning up your mess on that one.
Announcement By the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. OBEY. It is not our fault that we had to spend at least 60 days
answering questions from the San Diego prosecutor about shenanigans
that occurred on your side of the aisle in the last year. That occupied
the staff for an incredible amount of time.
Announcement By the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. Members have listened very courteously all evening.
Members will not interrupt and heckle, on either side, the speakers.
The gentleman may proceed.
Point of Order
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the Chairman not said----
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state a point of order. A point of
order is not a question. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman who is currently possessing the
time has violated the rules by addressing Members other than the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Chair has tried to remind Members on both
sides of that. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't say, I won't direct it directly to
them. I will simply direct it to you.
It is not our fault that the San Diego attorney subpoenaed records
from our committee relating to shenanigans that were conducted on the
other side of the aisle in the previous Congress under Republican
control.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I will not yield until I finish my statement. I would
appreciate the same courtesy I've shown you.
Now, let me point out, the process that they've invented is not one
that we have requested. What we have said is that, because of the
urgency of substance, we decided we were going to leave pork projects
behind for the moment. And what we've decided instead was to focus on
oversight and producing substantive bills.
We've now also said that in order to assure that there is review of
every project, that we are going to be filing, before the August
recess, every single earmark that we expect to place in the
appropriation bills. And Members will then have over 30 days to look at
the process. They can complain about any earmark they want.
We are going to ask that it be open, not hidden, behind-the-scenes
telephone calls. We're going to ask that people file in writing if they
have an objection. We're going to ask the sponsor of the amendment to
then respond in writing so that we can make a decent judgment about
those earmarks.
Now, let me make another point. For people who are squawking about
the fact that these earmarks aren't going to be in the bill originally,
the Republicans did the same thing on the Labor-H bill in 1998, in
1999, in 2002, in 2004, in 2005. They did not have any earmarks in the
Labor-Health-Education bill until the bill was in conference. The only
difference was those earmarks were never reviewed ahead of time. These
will be. Those earmarks were never in public view. These will be.
They also did the same thing in 2002 and 2003 when they couldn't even
get a Labor-H bill through the House, and so they went directly to
conference in an omnibus.
The difference between our process and the one they've been following
is that there will be an opportunity ahead of time to know who has
asked for these earmarks, and you'll be able to ask questions about it.
And I would assume that the leadership of both parties would take a
look at the project list for both parties so that they protect this
institution from the outrageous scandals that we had because of their
mismanagement when they were running the show.
And I will stack my record on congressional reform against anybody on
that side of the aisle any time. My entire career here has been defined
by reform, and I don't intend to change it now.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that our former speaker does know the
rules. He does put his time in on the work here. But by pointing out
the exceptions, he also points out the vast majority of the time that
the projects we had in the bill were in the bill. They could have been
debated.
In the long process that the gentleman has now suggested we would go
through, Mr. Chairman, the one thing that is not included in that
process, where apparently people can file responses, they can do this,
they can do that, they will not have the chance to debate on the House
floor.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Blunt
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
[[Page H6312]]
Recorded Vote
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190,
noes 221, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 458]
AYES--190
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
NOES--221
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--26
Arcuri
Bordallo
Braley (IA)
Clarke
Clay
Conaway
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Doyle
Edwards
Faleomavaega
Filner
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Hunter
Lewis (GA)
Norton
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Radanovich
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining on the vote.
{time} 2234
Messrs. DeFAZIO, SHULER, PALLONE, ALTMIRE and DOGGETT, Ms. WATSON and
Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. KINGSTON, WALSH of New York and WICKER changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to the amendment offered by
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the second-degree amendment of the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) in regard to cutting
something like $7.5 million out of this section of the bill.
The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the
subcommittee, spoke a little earlier in the evening and questioned the
logic, you know, why that amount. Well, if you do the math and you look
at that section, Mr. Chairman, that cut is about 7 percent. That amount
reflects the same amount of overspending in this bill. The $2 billion
is about 7 percent more than the President requested, and actually a
14.5 to 15 percent overall increase. So I think that the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is absolutely appropriate in asking for a
reasonable, fiscally responsible cut in a $120 million spending
category.
Mr. Chairman, another North Carolinian was heard by me to say this
morning, after the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had spoken
and said what we are trying to do, what the Republican minority is
trying to do is shut down the process. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes, said was, we're not trying to
shut down the process, we are trying to clean up the process.
Just a few minutes ago, before the last motion, the distinguished
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and I paraphrase, it is
not our fault that the former majority couldn't get their work done in
the previous Congress. Well, I would say to him, Mr. Chairman, it is
not our fault that the new majority and the Appropriations Committee
spent 3\1/2\ months debating an emergency supplemental for funding of
our troops with benchmarks and timelines, Mr. Chairman, that would call
for the withdrawal of our troops at a date certain, no matter what the
situation was. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of amendments
in that process to bring the troops home immediately and not to give
victory a chance. And, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that they
refused to listen, this new majority, and insisted on milking this
process for every ounce of political fodder that they could get out of
it, knowing full well that in the final analysis they had a losing
proposition. And they did lose that debate before we went home for the
Memorial Day recess. So, that is not our fault.
So, Mr. Chairman, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee
says, you know, we weren't able to put these earmarks in the
appropriations bill under the sunshine and the light of day, as always
has been done, because we ran out of time. And, Mr. Chairman, I have
heard it said that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee feels
very strongly that he wants to get all these bills done before the 4th
of July recess to do just as good a job as our distinguished former
chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Lewis did last year and
the year before that in the 109th Congress.
[[Page H6313]]
Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority wasted 3\1/2\
months and were not able to get these earmarks together in time to put
in these bills like they should have done. That's not our fault.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time had expired, at which point the
Chair recognized the gentlewoman from California.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had recognized previously the gentlewoman
from California.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise.
The CHAIRMAN. Members will suspend.
The gentleman from Georgia's time had expired. The Chair announced
that his time had expired and recognized the gentlewoman from
California.
Mr. GINGREY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California
rise?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the
last word.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189,
noes 218, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 459]
AYES--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--218
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--30
Becerra
Berkley
Bordallo
Boucher
Christensen
Clay
Conaway
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Delahunt
Doyle
Edwards
English (PA)
Faleomavaega
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Holden
Hunter
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick
Lewis (GA)
Miller (NC)
Norton
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Radanovich
Sessions
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains
in this vote.
{time} 2259
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota and Mr. CUELLAR changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 2300
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this bill. As you know, I
chair the Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee of
the Homeland Security Committee, and I have been working on port
security issues for many years, and I was extensively involved in the
SAFE Port Act that was signed into law last year.
One important provision of the SAFE Port Act was the requirement that
the Coast Guard implement a long-range vessel tracking system. More
than 60,000 vessels traverse the world's oceans annually, and more than
8,000 deep-draft vessels call on United States ports every year.
Implementation of a long-range vessel tracking system is critical to
ensure that maritime operations are conducted in a way that keeps our
Nation safe and secure. In addition, it will make international
commerce more efficient for our Nation's port operators.
Chairman Price, while your bill does not allocate a specific amount
of funding for the implementation of the required long-range vessel
tracking system, I have noted that there is a funding stream of $40
million for activities mandated by the SAFE Port law, and I want to
clarify your support for the implementation of the long-range vessel
tracking system required in the
[[Page H6314]]
SAFE Port law and that part of the $40 million in funding could be used
towards meeting that mandate.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman
yield?
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry
and for her leadership on the Homeland Security authorizing committee.
As you stated, the SAFE Port Act established many new requirements
related to port security. I agree that the implementation of a long-
range vessel tracking system should be a priority, and that part of the
$40 million in additional funding could be used to meet the long-range
vessel tracking system mandated in the SAFE Port Act.
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that
clarification and for your strong support for improving port security
and the security of our country.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have a question I think the American people would
like answered. It is a question that has not been asked tonight. We
know Chairman Obey, and we know he has taken a position that he is not
going to publish or disclose these earmarks. He has expressed his
opinion.
What we don't know, Mr. Chairman, is, the Speaker is not sitting in
the Chair and we don't know where the Speaker stands on this whole
procedure. We do know that the majority leader said that all earmarks
would be published, there would be complete transparency. We know that
he said in committee they would be debated. We know that the Speaker on
a number of occasions, I think we have all seen those quotes, we have
heard a few tonight, the Speaker make it clear during the campaign and
after the campaign that all earmarks would be disclosed prior to any
vote on the House floor.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent on the Speaker to come
before this body and address the body and tell the body whether or not
the procedure that we are witnessing, whether it is chairman of the
Appropriations Committee has taken this on himself, whether he is doing
it on his own accord, whether he has polled the Democrat Members to see
where they stand.
But more important, we want to know where the Speaker stands. We want
to know whether the Speaker consulted with the chairman, whether she
has blessed this. We know what she said in USA Today. We know what she
said in the Christian Science Monitor and what she said in a news
conference just last month. We know that in a press conference on March
13, 2007, she specifically said that all earmarks would be made public
before a vote on the House floor. We know that, so it is a mystery to
us why we are going through this process.
Now, the chairman of the full committee said back in 1999 there was a
bill, one bill, that the Republican majority did not publish the
earmarks before the vote on the floor. We know that is part of his
reason for doing this. But we also know that the Speaker of the House
told the American people that this would never happen as long as she
was Speaker. And she, as a late as a month ago, said there would be no
votes on the House floor on an appropriations bill where earmarks were
not published.
In fact, the gentleman from Illinois, the majority whip, says, if
possible, we are going to put them on the Internet weeks before we vote
on them on the House floor. They are not on the Internet. We don't know
how many earmarks there will be, what earmarks are under consideration,
the total amount of those earmarks.
But more importantly, we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman, we know
that the Speaker of this House, the Speaker of this House said that
this wouldn't happen. She said it many times on many occasions, both
during the campaign when she asked the American people to turn the
Republicans out and put the Democrats in.
And we know that from exit polls that many people went to the polls
on election day with that promise in mind; and they voted for Democrats
who now serve in this body under the assurance that this wouldn't
happen, and it is happening.
Now, we know that the chairman of the full committee, we know his
position. He said we just have to do. He talks about what we have done
and what they have done. The important thing is the American people.
In fact, earlier tonight on one of the news network, it was not Fox,
they asked: Where does Speaker Pelosi stand on this? The American
people are asking, where does the leadership of the majority stand on
this issue?
That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that before we proceed
in this body, that the Speaker of this House come before this body and
not tell, I don't care if she tells Republicans, I don't care if she
further explains to Democrats, I want her to tell the American people
why, only 3 weeks after promising that earmarks would be fully
disclosed both in committee and on the floor of this House, that we
backed away from this.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Bachus
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 220, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 460]
AYES--187
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOES--220
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
[[Page H6315]]
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Gohmert
NOT VOTING--29
Bordallo
Boucher
Clay
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Delahunt
Doyle
Edwards
English (PA)
Faleomavaega
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Holden
Hunter
Jones (OH)
Kilpatrick
McMorris Rodgers
Norton
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Sessions
Stark
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2
minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 2327
Mr. GOHMERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Point of Order
Mr. McHENRY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, under House rules, only a Member can speak
one time on each amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has spoken on the secondary amendment. He
has, however, not spoken on the primary amendment, which is still
pending.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
Mr. McHENRY. The secondary amendment is before us here now. That is
the operational motion.
The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
Mr. McHENRY. And so, therefore, since he has already spoken on the
secondary amendment, he may not speak a second time on the secondary
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The underlying amendment remains subject to debate, and
the gentleman is entitled to speak on the underlying amendment.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to both the underlying amendment
and the substitute amendment, and let me tell you why. I think it's
important to put that amendment in context.
We had crocodile tears expressed here about the number of earmarks
and what will happen to earmarks. Let me cite the record.
In 1994, the last year when Democrats controlled the House, earmarks
were primarily concentrated in four appropriation bills. They were
project-oriented bills like military construction, energy and water,
Interior and general government. This Homeland Security bill had not
even come to pass yet because it was before 9/11.
In the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill the last year that
the Democrats controlled, we had zero earmarks. The last year under
Republican control that we had earmarks in the Labor-H bill, we had
over 3,000.
In the Transportation bill, the authorizing bill, from 1956 through
1995, we had 20 separate highway bills pass this House containing a
total of 739 earmarks. Do you know how many we had, Mr. Chairman, in
2005 under Republican control in just one bill? Five thousand.
{time} 2330
Then we all remember the infamous 3-hour vote on Medicare part D.
I would ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle to keep this
civil. If the other side wants to turn it into a circus, fine, but I
think we ought to behave.
Let me say, we remember Medicare part D when the Republican
leadership kept the vote open for 3 hours. Meanwhile, the newspaper
stories told of how they promised earmarks in the transportation bill
in return for votes on Medicare part D.
Last year, we had three major scandals. We had the Cunningham affair,
then we had the bridge-to-nowhere, which caused a lot of heartburn
around the country; and now, just recently, we have another story
suggesting that the committee chairman then, the gentleman from Alaska,
inserted a project for Florida.
Under Republican rules, as they existed then, nobody knew about any
of that until about 2 years after the fact. Under the proposal that we
are proposing for earmarks, you would know about that 30 days before
they went into effect. That is a huge difference.
Let me also point out, in 1994, the four biggest appropriation bills
that's Commerce-Justice, Labor, Transportation and VA-HUD. The last
year the Democrats controlled the House, in 1994, the four major
appropriations bills, Commerce-Justice, Labor-Health, Transportation
and VA, we had a total of 764 earmarks. Those same bills, just one
fiscal year ago, had 8,600 earmarks.
With all due respect, I don't want to hear any crocodile tears on the
other side of the aisle with respect to the issue of earmarks. They
have exploded under their operation of this House, not under ours.
In terms of what's going on tonight, I should make quite clear that
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) told me in January that the
minority party would give us no procedural cooperation because they
didn't like the way we had handled a continuing resolution. They wanted
us to have a straight CR rather than thinking our way through
priorities. Now they have simply moved on to another excuse.
So I would simply say, whether you vote for the underlying amendment
or for the amendment to the amendment, these are not real amendments.
It is clear to me that they have only one purpose, to bring this House
to a halt, and they are looking for any excuse they can find.
They got a mighty weak one, but we are going to stay here until the
job is done. This is the people's business. We are not going to be
diverted by their trying to play Trivial Pursuit on this bill.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have voted every time to continue our process against my
leadership. I was not going to say anything, but when you referred to
the bridge-to-nowhere as a scandal, when you voted for it four times,
most of the people in this room voted for it four times. It was always
transparent. I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks,
always have, as long as they are exposed.
But don't you ever call that a scandal.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That's hard to do.
I would suggest respectfully, again, let's keep our facts straight.
Every one of you in this room, maybe, six or eight people, never voted
for the bill that you are talking about. But you voted for it four
times.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It was transparent, as it should be tonight.
[[Page H6316]]
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It seems to me we are in some danger of forgetting what we are here
about. We are here about the second-degree amendment of the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). I rise in strong support of that
amendment because it would restrain the excessive spending in this
bill.
But it's more important that we talk about what we are really here
about. What we are really here about is the people's business. What we
are really here about is how we spend their money.
What brings us here tonight, in the middle of the night, is that the
majority has proposed a procedure for handling earmarks which is
inconsistent with what you told the American people. It is
indefensible, and it cannot stand. You can recognize that. You can
accept that fact tonight and change that procedure; you can accept that
fact tomorrow.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SHADEGG. You can accept those facts tonight and change the
procedure. The majority can accept that fact tomorrow and change the
procedure. The majority can accept that fact next week and change the
procedure, but the procedure will change.
I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I
understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand
that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks
were handled in the past.
But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people
now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American
people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they
cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks
and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated.
There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense.
The American people understand that some people in this body believe
earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks
can be very bad and very corrupt.
They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know
what's in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated
on this floor.
Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can
post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this
process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills,
critical language to bill language that the American people don't get
to see or know about after debate has occurred.
We didn't tell the American people that we would make the process
open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every
earmark to be debated, because we don't run the place.
You run the place. You're in the majority.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Members will remember to
address their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. SHADEGG. The majority party told America that these earmarks
would be openly revealed, and that means they have to be debated.
It doesn't matter. You can relent now, or you can go on and defend
this practice through the press tomorrow and tell them that you want
secrecy. You do not want a Member over here to be able to debate an
individual earmark. You do not want that earmark revealed to the public
today.
You do not want that earmark revealed to the public today. You want
to put its being revealed off to some point later, when no Member can
raise it or object to it, but the American people get it. The history
lesson is nothing more than a history lesson.
Earmarks in this body must now be disclosed because the Speaker said
she would disclose them. That's all we are asking for. We are asking
that they be disclosed so the American people can see them, so that our
constituents can see them, and so on this floor we can debate them and
discuss them. The good ones will pass, and the ones that are corrupt or
inappropriate will fail.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Shadegg
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188,
noes 216, not voting 33, as follows:
[Roll No. 461]
AYES--188
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Cole (OK)
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--216
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Christensen
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
[[Page H6317]]
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--33
Bordallo
Boucher
Buyer
Clay
Coble
Conaway
Conyers
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
Delahunt
Doyle
Edwards
English (PA)
Faleomavaega
Fortuno
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastert
Holden
Hunter
Myrick
Norton
Peterson (PA)
Rangel
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stark
Van Hollen
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1
minute remaining in the vote.
{time} 2356
So the motion to rise was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And I yield
the balance of my time to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms.
Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there's been a lot said tonight by the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee about how the numbers of
earmarks have gone up over the years, or went up over the years that
Republicans were in charge. But nary a word has been said about the
fact that the Democrats were getting a large proportion of those
earmarks. So I think we ought to talk a little bit about the fact that
Democrats were getting some of those evil earmarks that they campaigned
so hard against last year.
For example, actually, in 1996, the first year that Republicans were
in charge and did the budget, the number of earmarks actually went
down. The last year that the Democrats did their budget, the earmarks
were 1,439. The first year that Republicans were in charge, the
earmarks went down to 958. Of the 958, the Democrats had 40 percent,
383.
Now, it is true that the number of earmarks went up over the years.
In 1997 they went to 1,596. Democrats had 638 of those earmarks.
In 2005 the number did go up to 13,996, and Democrats had 5,599 of
those. So if they were so evil in those days, it's hard to understand
how you could have been claiming such a large proportion of them.
Obviously you all missed the point in the debate about these
earmarks. Many Republicans believe in earmarks. We think that it is the
right of the Congress to appropriate money to certain projects. That's
not the issue.
The issue is you campaigned on transparency and changing the system.
Announcement by the Chairman
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to the Chair.