Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 13, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6347-H6394]
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 further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2638.

{time} 1119

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 further 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. Weiner in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the
legislative day of Tuesday, June 12, 2007, the bill had been read
through page 2, line 11, and pending was the amendment by the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to amendment No. 33 by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman from Georgia already spoken on
this amendment?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. No, sir.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I look forward again to a spirit
of debate today on an issue that's of the highest importance, I
believe, to the American people.
Before we get into the substance of the amendment, I thought it might
be appropriate to review a few items of discussion as we closed last
evening. We had some good friends on the other side who talked about
all of this being ``a waste of time.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to
tell you that my colleagues and I believe that any time that we can
fight on behalf of the American people for transparency and for
accountability and, yes, for democracy, that that is not a waste of
time.
We heard last evening that our discussion points on this
appropriations bill, which spends billions of hard-earned taxpayer
money, that it was long on process and short on policy. Well, Mr.
Chairman, our policy regarding the earmark issue, which has now grabbed
the attention of the entire Nation, our policy was complete
transparency and an opportunity not just to be informed about earmarks,
but to have an up or down vote, an up or down vote and the opportunity
to vote on each individual special project. That is an apparent novel
thought to our new majority, and we would encourage them to visit the
rule that we had in place prior to the change in leadership.
We also heard last evening that we weren't hearing any facts by the
minority party. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that their earmark
policy, the majority party's earmark policy is simply a slush fund to
spend money as they or one individual may deem fit.
As we revisit this second-order amendment, I think it's important for
the American people to appreciate and for our colleagues to appreciate
that what this amendment would do would be to decrease spending by the
majority party by about $8.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that's $8.5 million
in savings to the American people.
Now, I know to some here in Washington that may seem like a paltry
sum, but $8.5 million is a lot of money. It's a lot of money, and it's
appropriate for us to be discussing how that money ought be spent.
The chairman of the subcommittee said yesterday what we needed was a
reality check about this amount of money that was in the bill. He said
that the majority party consulted with the Office of Executive Counsel,
and this is exactly the amount of money that they said they needed.
Well, Mr. Chairman, we consulted some folks, too. We consulted the
American taxpayer. The American taxpayer said that we are spending too
much money, and that they want greater oversight on the amount of money
that this Congress spends of their hard-earned tax money.
Mr. Chairman, this new majority ran on a policy of openness and
honesty and candor, and I would suggest that this is hardly a process
that could be considered as embracing openness or honesty or candor. If
we examine the process that's proposed by the majority party, it would
allow appropriations bills to have a line in them. Every appropriations
bill would have a line in it, it would say ``trust us, just trust us.''
Any Member that then wanted a special project or an earmark would write
a request to the Appropriations Chair, the Appropriations Chair would
then decide if that project had merit, not the House, the
Appropriations Chair, and then we would be informed. No opportunity to
identify that particular project, projects would simply be disclosed.
We would be given information.
Well, Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about disclosure. It's not just
about knowing what's in the bill. It is about having the opportunity,
as our constituents would desire, for us to debate the issue, for us to
debate each of those special projects, for us to deliberate on them. It
would be an opportunity for us to follow the rules of the House. It
would be an opportunity for transparency, and a much greater
opportunity for accountability.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is about ideology, yes, about who ought to be
better able to spend the hard-earned taxpayers' money, whether it's
Washington or whether it's our constituents. And it's about a slush
fund that we are beginning to get a sense is recurring in bill after
bill, and in these appropriations bills, a slush fund in every bill
that would allow the majority party to determine where those special
projects would be funded.
So what's the solution? What's the solution? We had a long debate
yesterday, a long discussion yesterday. And I think it is important
that we put on the table the solution that would be most appropriate,
and that is, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a moratorium. Let's have a
moratorium on all earmarks. Let's make it so that we do what the
American people, what our constituents would desire, which is to get
together and solve this challenge that we have. It's not a Republican
challenge or a Democrat challenge, it's an American challenge: How do
we most wisely and most responsibly spend the American taxpayer money?
I would support a moratorium. I urge my colleagues to adopt this
amendment as we learn and work to responsibly spend taxpayer money.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Let me take this opportunity, first of all, to congratulate the
chairman, Congressman Price, on this particular piece of legislation.
Let me also share with you, as a member of this particular
subcommittee, of this particular committee, we had some 22 hearings.
The gentleman speaks about the importance of being able to see, in
terms of transparency. We had 22 hearings. That is much more than in
the previous time.
We had an opportunity, also, to visit the border. We went through
Arizona all the way down to San Diego. We had a chance to look in terms
of the border and the type of technology that is required in order to
safeguard our border, not to mention the fact that we also looked at
the different types of fences that are being utilized. And there is no

[[Page H6348]]

doubt that there is a need there, especially in the areas in Arizona
and elsewhere where we visited, where there is a need for blocking
vehicles from coming in.
I was really impressed with the type of technology that is already
there. And I am impressed that the bill will also provide additional
resources to allow additional technology throughout the entire border.
This bill is a bill that authorizes direct Federal funds to also help
law enforcement officers on the border. I represent 700 miles along the
Texas/Mexico border. I have probably the largest district that
comprises those 700 miles along the border. And we have a tremendous
amount of resources and need in that area in order to safeguard the
community as well as provide good security.
One of the things that we provide is the Stone Garden project. That
allows resources to be able to be utilized by the sheriffs and by the
local law enforcement officers to help out, and all the other
communities to be able to participate with the Federal officers to be
able to make things happen on the border.
Let me just share a few examples. We get complaints from some of my
communities that are very small, right on the Mexican border, that
might have three to six policemen. One little car accident or one item
can get them all engaged in that one activity while the local taxpayer
has to carry the burden. The Federal Government has the responsibility,
and this bill allows that opportunity to do that.
To us, homeland security is important. Homeland security is key. This
bill has no earmarks. In the past, I have been informed that it has had
very few earmarks. And so it is something that is critical and
important. We felt that we needed to provide additional resources to
some of those communities. There is also a need for us to provide those
resources on not only the south, but on the northern border, also.
The bill provides grants to hire, train and equip local law
enforcement officials in these communities. There is also some
reimbursement for individuals that are caught, undocumented individuals
on the border, whether they be trafficking with drugs or with human
smuggling, which is also an area that we need to continue to work on.
This bill allows that opportunity for us to begin to fill those gaps.
There is no doubt that we have not made the investment. This bill
begins to provide that investment that is needed to protect our
borders.

{time} 1130

The reimbursement of county and city law enforcement agencies for
costs also associated with detaining, housing and transporting
individuals who have entered the country illegally is essential because
my border community, the local taxpayer, has to carry that burden. This
Federal Government has a responsibility.
So I share with my individual friends on the other side and say that
it is important for us to pass this piece of legislation. I think it
provides good resources for our communities throughout.
It also provides funding for the construction and maintenance and
operation of detention facilities that are essential. As you well know,
in some cases, sometimes we will find some 80 illegals coming in
through Arizona, and you pick up a large number of individuals. So you
have to have the number of staff required in order to process them and
in order to bring them through. We also provide the resources that are
needed to begin to enhance the technology that is being utilized in
order to make that happen.
What is also important to note is we also need to begin to see what
is more cost effective when it comes to the border in terms of the
technology. There has been a lot of talk about the fence. The reality
is that a border patrolman will tell you that the fence allows you 1 or
2 more minutes just to be able to do that.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, aren't we supposed
to alternate between sides?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is a member of the
committee.
The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, last night and most of yesterday we saw a
very unfortunate situation take place on the House floor: discussions,
anger, tempers, and very little on the substance or the bill or the
work of the committee.
I rise today to remind us of the work this committee has done in a
bipartisan fashion before we came to the floor. I have been a member of
the Homeland Security Committee since it was formed. So has Mr. Price,
Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know for certain that on the
other side the former chairman and ranking member, Mr. Rogers, has been
a member since the creation of the committee. From day one, the
committee has taken its work very seriously.
This year, under new leadership, the committee continued to take its
work seriously. We held 20 hearings plus a couple of field hearings,
over 50 hours of public hearings. Decisions, information was not
gathered in private. These were public hearings. Over 70 witnesses came
before us both from government and those who have the knowledge to
advise us on these issues.
During those hearings, every member was treated fairly. In fact, one
of the highlights, I think, was the way in which Mr. Price worked with
Mr. Rogers and the way that Mr. Rogers continued to play such an
important role in these hearings in presenting his views, his knowledge
and his expertise.
That kind of bipartisanship, that kind of presentation, that kind of
work led to the bill that we have before us. It is one of the few bills
in this House where those of us who are part of the committee know well
how serious the issue is and how much we have to do to try to assign
the proper dollars.
When the bill left committee, there were, of course, a few
disagreements. But there was a bipartisan belief that we were doing
that which we were challenged to do, that we were asked to do, which
was to put forth a bill that secured the homeland, that protected the
homeland.
Yet, what we saw yesterday did not speak to that at all. What we saw
yesterday was personal attacks. It was discussions about issues that
were not involved in this bill. Interestingly enough, the number one
decision yesterday was to attack earmarks. Yet Mr. Rogers set a
precedent, which was followed by Mr. Price, that if there is a bill
that does not deal with earmarks, it is this bill.
Now, that needs to be repeated. Of all the bills to pick on to deal
with the issue of earmarks, this is the wrong bill. This was something
instituted by Chairman Rogers and continued by Chairman Price on a
bipartisan level. This is so serious, this issue at hand, and these
dollars are so serious and so dedicated in the way they are
appropriated that the earmarking process perhaps should not play a role
at all. And it hasn't, up to now, I assure you. Otherwise I would have
gone to Chairman Rogers and gotten something in the last few years. I
didn't because it just did not exist.
So now we find ourselves with a decision to make today: Will we
continue to behave on the floor as if we were discussing the reelection
for Congress in 2008, or do we really want to send to the President's
desk a bill that speaks to the needs of our community in securing our
homeland?
I represent the Bronx, New York City. I was in New York City on
September 11. I was not here with my colleagues. As I have said often,
my son was running for the New York City Council on that day, and the
election was cut off at 11 o'clock in the morning because of the
terrorist attack. That is something no one writes about, that the
terrorists were able to stop our electoral process in the biggest city
in the Nation around 11 a.m. The elections were run 2 weeks later. So I
was there helping my son on election day. I remember the pain and the
horror that you all know about of seeing my city attacked.
I take this bill personally very seriously. I take the bill as a
Member of Congress personally very seriously. This committee has taken
this bill very seriously. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, takes
protection and the safety of the homeland very seriously.
Let's make sure that all Members take it seriously. Let's pass the
bill.

[[Page H6349]]

Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike
the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who has just spoken has talked about
dedication to homeland security by the members of the subcommittee and
the full Appropriations Committee, and perhaps inadvertently suggested
that others' concern about that does not rise to the same level. I
would suggest if that is what the gentleman meant that he is wrong.
I think it is fair to say that all Members in this House were
affected, both personally, professionally, and as Americans by the
events of 9/11. I would suggest that while some of us may believe the
sense of urgency is not maintained at all times with respect to the
threat that faces us, there is in fact in much, if not everything we
do, the sense of the background of the vicious attack on 9/11.
The gentleman talked about the Appropriations Committee and the
appropriations subcommittee. I happen to be a member of the authorizing
committee, the Homeland Security Committee. I believe we have acted in
a bipartisan way.
But just to indicate a few differences between what is in this bill
and what we have done in the past on a bipartisan basis or coming out
of the Homeland Security Committee, the chemical protection regime that
we established last year, after much discussion, after much debate and
after much balancing is changed in this bill.
The border fence, which has been the subject of much debate, much
attention, I happen to support it and proudly support it. I do not
believe it is the panacea, but it is part of the solution. Many in the
American public have wondered whether we meant what we said when we
passed the legislation that authorized and appropriated funds for the
border fence. They must have many more questions today, because in this
bill it makes it more difficult to complete that task. Some would
suggest it makes it impossible. Now, I happen to be a lawyer; I plead
guilty. But if I wanted to have lawsuits to stop the fence, I would say
hallelujah when I looked at this version of the law that is contained
in this bill that is presented to us.
One of the gentlemen on the other side talked about detention
facilities. I introduced the first piece of legislation that stopped
the ``catch and release'' program followed by this administration and
previous administrations dealing with OTMs, or ``other than Mexicans,''
caught on our southern border. One of the reasons why they were caught
and released and told to come back in 60 or 90 days for their court
appearance, and 94 percent of them never did, by the way, was because
we didn't have sufficient detention facilities. So ICE has said in
addition to those we own, we ought to see whether we can use privatized
detention facilities. This bill makes it difficult, if not impossible,
to do that.
So please don't tell us on the floor that some on that side of the
aisle are more concerned about homeland security than we are.
This bill places restrictions on personnel management policies that
have been adopted by the Homeland Security Department, recognizing the
uniqueness of their mission.
So please don't tell us that those on that side of the aisle are more
concerned about homeland security than are we.
Perhaps those on the other side of the aisle believe that the only
way you show sincerity is by throwing more money at it. There is a
difference. That is why the ranking member, the former chairman of this
subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment to bring this back down to
a level that can get passed. If you want a veto, as you did for 120
days with the question of supporting our troops, you can get it on this
as well.
The former chairman, the current ranking member of the subcommittee,
is going to offer an amendment that will make it more probable than not
that this bill will be signed by the President. Yet, in an effort to
show that you feel more on this issue by throwing more money at it, you
are going to subject us to the same political routine that we just went
through with respect to funding our troops. 120 days lost.
We have plenty of time to debate this bill and other bills on the
floor. All we have to do is make sure we stay here and debate it.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Has the gentlewoman been recognized on this
amendment yet?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to sit here last
night and then today and listen to some of our colleagues who find it
incumbent to step to the microphone and say this is not a worthy debate
and to talk about frustration and talk about anger and talk about this
being a debate of little substance.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to everyone that serves in this
Chamber and the people that they represent, this is indeed a very
worthy debate. It is a debate that deserves our best effort. It is a
debate that deserves our focus and our undivided attention.
It is also a debate that we should enter into with respect for the
American taxpayers, the ones that are sending their hard-earned dollars
here and their expectation that we should be, that it is incumbent upon
us to be good stewards of every single penny that comes to this House.
So for those who feel that the moments we are spending on this floor
are not worthy, I would commend to them to think about the taxpayer
that is hard at work right now, maybe in a job they don't even like,
maybe doing something they don't really love, but they are working hard
to provide for their family and they are working hard to meet their
obligations and pay their taxes and to make certain that they do their
part to be a good American citizen.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the frustration, anger and ``of
little substance'' that was spoken of by one of my colleagues a bit
earlier this morning, is probably exercised by the American taxpayer
who looks at the increases in spending that have been brought forward
by this majority. They are the ones who are frustrated. I think they
are the ones who are angry. And I think that they are probably the ones
who look at what is taking place and they fear that money is being put
into items that are not substantive.

{time} 1145

Now, this new majority has already increased appropriations $105
billion. This is a 5-year cost of what they're wanting to appropriate.
For '07, we've got $587 billion they've appropriated. They've already
designated $23 billion in an '08 budget and it goes on and on and on,
the increases in spending.
Certainly we know that the bill before us, this homeland security
bill, would be a 13.6 percent increase. And as I speak on Mr. McHenry's
amendment, I commend him for bringing forward something that would cut
just a little bit, just a little bit, out of these expenditures. But
the truth, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a philosophical difference in
how we approach this debate from our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle.
Now, we heard last night that the decision on how appropriations
should be done and how earmarks should be handled should be delegated
to some of the professional staff. I heard from a couple of my
constituents on this issue who really could not understand why we would
want to delegate that authority, not review these earmarks ourselves,
not want to cast a vote on those. They feel like that is our job, just
as they feel like it is our job to oversee this budget, just as they
want to know how this $36 billion is going to be spent on homeland
security. They want to see a more transparent and a more open budget
process. They don't want to see secret slush funds returned.
They heard about these. They didn't believe it in the 1970's. They
didn't believe they really existed in the 1980's. And then we had the
advent of the Internet, 24/7 news, people could log on, and they
started realizing, yes, there were these secret slush funds and smoke-
filled rooms and that's how money got appropriated and sequestered for
specific projects, something that they really didn't like. That is one
of the reasons that we saw a change in '94 and things were done
differently.

[[Page H6350]]

I enjoyed that debate. I enjoyed that little history lesson last
night. But I think as we review our situation that we find ourselves in
today, what we see is a need for more transparency. We see a need to
rein in this funding.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I think that this discussion on this bill today should begin with an
appropriate appreciation for the great work of the chairman and the
ranking member. Both Chairman Price and the gentleman, Mr. Rogers, the
ranking member, have done an extraordinary job in crafting a bill to
address the real challenges facing our Nation in terms of homeland
security. I think that the fact that there have been cuts in various
programs shows that it was a rigorous process, but I think that the
additions are also equally important.
I wanted to point out in particular a number of the sections in this
bill: This domestic nuclear detection office is so important, because I
think that we all know based on the information both in classified and
declassified briefing material, and for the general public, whether
it's watching Jack Bauer or however they may gather their information,
that it is a real concern in our Nation, the possibility of a nuclear
strike at one of our major urban centers, a nuclear device, a dirty
bomb. This domestic detection office and the funding for it allocated
in this bill, I think, is important.
I think that the availability of grants for our first responders. I
come from the Philadelphia region. I don't want to prejudge any of the
cases, but we have had arrests that have been widely noticed in the
national media of people allegedly preparing to strike at Fort Dix in
New Jersey. We've seen the incident at the JFK airport where the
discussion is around people who were focused on potentially doing
massive harm, attempting to blow up jet fuel lines running from Linden,
New Jersey, all the way into the JFK airport.
So the question of homeland security, protecting our borders, adding
thousands of additional Border Patrol guards, I think that this House
has been well served by the capable leadership of the chairman,
Chairman Price, and the ranking member. They've brought a quality bill
to the floor. This is my first term serving on the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee, a committee that was previously led by the
ranking member but is now being led by Chairman Price, but they have
put together a bill that came out of our full committee and out of our
subcommittee with strong bipartisan support.
Even though, Mr. Chairman, we hear some comments from the other side,
we know that they don't really represent the total views of the Members
either on our side or the other side, because this bill got quality
support in committee. I know that when we get a chance to vote on this
bill, when we get a chance to vote on increasing State grants for law
enforcement, $950 million, $50 million above the 2007 number and $700
million above the President's request for grants to help local
communities plan, equip and train first responders, that this bill is
going to get a resounding level of support in this House. There
probably wouldn't be more than a handful of Members, if that, who are
going to vote against this bill. Even though we have a lot of
discussion about things that are not really meritorious, in this bill
there is a great deal of meritorious approaches to protecting our
Nation from real threats.
These are real threats that are playing themselves out on our borders
and in our cities each and every day, and our local and national law
enforcement community needs the resources that are being made available
and appropriated in this bill.
I am very appreciative of the effort that has been put in the urban
area grants and in the fire grants, and after Katrina and the work that
has been done on emergency management and the performance area.
I would hope that before too many people are swayed, that somehow
this bill doesn't represent our efforts to deal with the challenges
facing our country, that they really look at the details, Mr. Chairman,
and some of the political grandstanding that is going on will give way
and we will get to the heart of this issue and the country will be in a
position to appreciate the great work of our chairman and the ranking
member. I have had the pleasure of serving with them, seeing the
hearings and seeing the oversight.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to commend my colleagues for their activities over the last
day. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have come to the
floor and offered amendments, in some cases, to do something, perhaps
small but something to try to control the explosion of spending that
we're seeing come forward through this budget and through this
appropriations process. And so I want to commend my colleagues from
North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, whose amendment we are debating now, which
is a secondary amendment to our colleague, Ms. Foxx from North
Carolina. I know it's a little confusing sometimes. These are efforts
to try to control runaway spending, billions and billions of dollars,
to be paid for, as we have heard in this debate, by the largest tax
increase in American history. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to
try to do something to get our arms around that spending.
But there is another reason why we have been coming to the floor, and
that is to shed some light into a horribly flawed process of earmarks.
One of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York, I believe, earlier
came down and said, ``Why are we talking about earmarks? There aren't
any earmarks in this bill.'' Well, you see, that's the point. We don't
know if there are earmarks in this bill. We don't know if there will be
earmarks in this bill, but frankly the suspicion that we have is that
sometime in July, or perhaps August, we will find out that indeed there
are going to be earmarks in this bill and we, Members of this House,
are not going to have a chance to challenge those earmarks on this
floor, and that is simply unacceptable.
Now, there has been a great deal of media interest to bring focus to
this. In fact, in this morning's paper, a local paper here, Roll Call,
there is an editorial called Pork Rules that ought to underscore the
very problem. I am just going to quote a couple of paragraphs from that
story, because I think it does underscore the very issue that we're
talking about on the floor of this House.
It says:
``Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House
Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new
disclosure policy on earmarks. It's better than his previous one, the
airdrop policy, but it's a far cry from full transparency.'' It's that
transparency issue that we've been trying to get at.
Continuing the quote:
``In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly
every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking
questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every
earmark and its sponsor by the end of July.''
I would say to my colleagues, that is well past the proposed date
that we are supposed to be voting on this and every appropriations bill
in this House. So we will know every earmark and its sponsor by the end
of July, at which point we can do absolutely nothing about it.
Continuing the quote:
``That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the
earmark rules Republicans put into place in September, after they got
into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest
pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be
individually challenged in debate on appropriations bills.'' And that's
the point.
We heard the debate last night repeatedly that went something like
this: Well, you Republicans put in earmarks, thousands of earmarks, and
you airdropped earmarks into bills in conference, and so you did it,
we're going to do it. But we're going to do it better because we're
going to post a list sometime in July or August, at which time nobody
will be able to vote on it.
Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the earmark process in this body, in
this Congress, on both sides of this Capitol, has been broken for
years. There is no question about it. There is a reason why many of us
have decided that the process is so broken that we won't participate in
it. So claiming that you were bad and, therefore, we can do it,

[[Page H6351]]

strikes me as a very hollow and weak argument. I hope my colleagues
would agree with me on that. Just because somebody made a mistake
doesn't mean that we are then authorized to make a mistake. We are
seeking transparency. That was the promise made to us and the American
people, that we would be able to look at these earmarks and be able to
debate them on this floor and be able to vote on them on this floor,
not have them given to us, pulled from what has been called a secret
slush fund. Frankly, I don't know what else to call it. Because in this
very bill that we are debating today, we simply don't know where that
money is and where it's going.

{time} 1200

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was gone yesterday because of the funeral of a dear
friend of mine in Texas, and I only returned to Washington late last
night. I was listening to the debate last night and then this morning.
I must say, it is a great country when the architects of the largest
deficits in American history can come to the floor of this House and
have the right to stand up and lecture other Members about fiscal
responsibility and the need to reduce earmarks.
As a Democrat in the new majority Democratic House, I am proud to be
part of an effort that is reforming the earmark process, making it more
transparent, reducing the number of earmarks, and we are moving this
country in the right direction.
Speaking of moving this country in the right direction, I think most
Americans would like to see this House on a bipartisan basis move
forward and pass one of the most important pieces of legislation we
will vote on this year, and that is the legislation to defend the
American family, our families, from the threat of terrorism and the
threat of terrible natural disasters.
Now, Mr. Chairman, if anybody wonders whether the debate we are
hearing from the other side of the aisle is a delay tactic or not, I
would ask those listening, do you even know which amendment is being
debated right now. I have been sitting here for 30 minutes, and I have
not heard much of anything, if at all, about the amendment before the
House. I think that is good evidence that what this is really about is
not a substantive debate on the amendment before the House. It is a
stalling tactic, because those who lost the majority because they could
not set the right priorities for this country are now trying to stop
the new majority from moving our country in a new direction and trying
to stop us from making a top priority out of defending our homeland,
our communities and our children and families from the threat of
terrorism.
For the record, let me just say, in case you haven't heard it from
the minority side, the amendment we are supposed to be debating right
now is an amendment by Mr. McHenry. His amendment would actually cut in
half the general counsel's budget for the Department of Homeland
Security, basically putting at jeopardy the operations of one of the
most important agencies in our country.
It is a fact of life that one must have a general counsel's office in
order to follow the laws of this land and in order to implement
programs effectively and efficiently to defend our homeland, and I
think it is irresponsible to propose cutting that in half.
It is not only irresponsible in my book, I find it interesting that
some of the very same Members of this House who are saying we should
not vote for my Homeland Security appropriations bill that spends $1
more than the President's budget requested because we should listen to
the President, now those same people are turning a blind ear to the
President's request and the need to have an adequate general counsel's
office and are trying to gut the general counsel's office in half. They
need to make up their mind: is it critical that we do what the
President asked for or not.
In fact, I think we should exercise our constitutional independent
authority as Members of Congress and pass the appropriation bill that
we think is right for defending our country. I make no bones about my
support for some of the increased funding in this bill compared to the
President's request.
Let me be specific: the President's budget would propose cutting the
first responder training program from $88 million to $38 million. There
might be some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the House that
think we should simply make that cut because the President asked for
it. I disagree.
What would be the consequence of such a disastrous cut? It would
eliminate over 900 specialized training courses for emergency
responders. Those emergency responders are firefighters, police
officers and EMS personnel. They are being trained in a coordinated
national training program to help protect our families' lives when our
communities are hit by natural disaster, or God forbid, by terrorist
attack. The proposed cut in the President's budget would actually stop
specialized training in prevention protection and response recovery to
over 100,000 emergency responders each year.
I am proud that this budget, which by the way passed the House
Appropriations Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan voice vote, this
budget, this bill, is a good bill. It does spend more than the
President requested, but for the right reasons: to defend Americans
from the threat of terrorism and natural disaster.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Edwards) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, and by unanimous consent, Mr.
Edwards was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I have a question: Shouldn't all items in an
appropriations bill, whether it be for an agency or for directed
spending by a Member of Congress, should that not be voted on by the
entire body, and shouldn't we have an opportunity to inspect as a body
all spending in an appropriations bill, including earmarks?
Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, the fact is that Members of
Congress, the House and the Senate, will have an opportunity to vote on
this legislation. If there are egregious projects in this that come
from the administration or from individual Members of Congress, they
can vote this bill down.
I hope we can get back next year to the regular order of business;
but the reality is that this Congress had to dig out of the hole
created by the leadership in the last Congress that didn't pass 11 of
13 appropriations bills, and that is one of the reasons we are in this
situation today.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations
Committee, I come to you, America, with a good bill. It is unfortunate
the tactics over the last 24 hours has not allowed us to move forward
to protect American citizens.
The President's budget came to us with a cut of $50 million for the
first responders. Homeland security has to talk about hometown
security. It is about a partnership with our Federal Government, our
State government, and our local communities. So right off the bat a
budget that cuts first responders $50 million is not a good budget.
We have before us a good budget, a budget that has been put together
so that it takes care of hometowns better than presently. So that if,
God forbid, another terrorist attack or natural disaster happens, we
will be better able to meet that need. It is a budget that I believe
deserves our support. And when passed by this Congress, and I predict
it will be passed after the tactics have wilted and gone away, then we
will have a good bill.
I am from the State of Michigan. In Michigan, we have the largest
population of Arab Americans outside of the Middle East. They have been
our friends for decades. They work in our communities and go to school
with our children. They produce and pay taxes. It is unfortunate after
9/11 a population of Arabs from other countries brought havoc on our
country, and they should be caught, they should be punished, and they
should be dealt with.
I only mention the Arab population because I also in my district have
the international waterway of the Detroit River that separates the city
of Detroit from the country of Canada, Windsor,

[[Page H6352]]

Ontario, Canada specifically. Canada is one of the greatest friends
that our country has. I am sad to report, as you know, many countries
in this world are not so friendly to the U.S. because of many things
that have happened by this administration over the last 8 or so years.
But the bill before us is a good one. It protects the northern border
where I come from, where things come in and out of that border every
day. Over a billion dollars of commerce passes the Ambassador Bridge
every day. This bill provides more money to protect America, protect
commerce, and protect the people who live in that region.
The local grants, the grants to first responders have been increased
in this bill. We need to have that partnership. You can't talk about
homeland security unless you talk adequately about hometown security.
This bill does that.
We talk all of the time about how we move forward in this country. I
believe it is how we work together in a bipartisan way; and over the
last almost 24 hours now, in a bill that is almost $35 billion, we have
been unable to move forward to protect Americans citizens. Your Federal
budget is $2.9 trillion. There are three main entitlements that we pay
for to help American citizens, 44 million Americans who are
participants in our Medicare program, entitlements that are part of
that budget, Medicaid, low-income, disabled children, over 40 million
of them who are part of this budget. And our veterans, veterans who
have protected this country since our inception. We have to treat them
better, and this budget and the budgets that come after this do that.
The President's budget did not.
This is the first of 12 budgets, and it is unfortunate that we are at
a stalemate and can't protect American citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I stand here asking that the process go forward. You
have made your point. We hope that we come back and have some kind of
dialogue so we can better make the proposition that America deserves to
be protected, as this Homeland Security bill does.
In the metropolitan area of Detroit, we have 5 million people who
live in that area, 219 cities and townships. It hosts the largest
multicultural population probably in this country. We need a good
Homeland Security bill. We have one here before us. Let's let the
process go on. I hope the leadership on both sides of the aisle can
come together and talk about how we can move this process. We don't
need to be stalemated. Yes, we can stay. We can stay for the next 2
months and never go home, but is that really what America needs us to
do?
Recently, regarding the Congress, like the President, the American
people have said they are disappointed with both of us. They want us to
move forward. Let's pass this Homeland Security bill and get on with
the business of building the Nation for God's children.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Before the gentlewoman from Michigan leaves, I wonder if she would
yield to a question.
I was wondering, the gentlewoman mentioned, and I appreciate what she
is saying about leadership getting together, she mentioned a $50
million cut to first responders. Can you tell me how much is unspent
from previous appropriations?
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Not at this time, but I would be happy to work with
you to get that. The money has been appropriated. All of the locals
that have come before our committee have asked that we give them more
help. Intraoperability is a major problem. They need the technology so
they can operate and protect the people they represent.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just comment
that there is $5 billion in the first responder grant program which has
not been accepted by States, and each year about September they have to
give back a portion of that. And the underlying bill appropriates $4
billion more, and that is the reason that the President cut $50 million
out.
He said there is so much money unspent, let's begin to lower the
level we are pouring into it, and it seems to me a reasonable
suggestion.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. There
is nearly $5 billion in the grant funds for State and local communities
for first responders. It has been there for a couple of years.
I don't know why we don't insist that the authorizers in this body
write the rules so that these communities can get their hands on that
money and use it for the purposes for which it was intended. The money
is laying there. I don't know why we are continuing to pour billions
more into it when the hopper is full already. Let's fix the system and
unclog the pipe that drains the hopper.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. I certainly agree with the gentleman. We need to see
that the money moves out. There also has to be staffing and
organizations to make sure that the money that is appropriated is spent
wisely. Locals need it, and it is our responsibility to get it to them.
Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Price). He mentioned last night that the underlying
amendment is Mr. McHenry wanting to take money out of the appropriation
for the lawyers, and he pointed out we have 77 staffers in order to
watch for circumstances like the Dubai Ports.
I would comment that the gentleman's party has been in the majority
now since January, and 80 percent of our ports are still controlled by
foreign countries. Have you put a bill in? If that is true, and it is,
80 percent controlled by foreign countries, that is the exact
circumstance you mentioned we would not want to cut this budget for. I
am asking if the gentleman knows of any plans on his side to simply
eliminate those contracts, to take the contracts away from the foreign
countries. It seems like if the gentleman is concerned, 80 percent of
our ports are controlled, that there would be something in the works to
do that.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PEARCE. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Is the gentleman suggesting that those
contracts should just be cancelled outright by legislative fiat?
Mr. PEARCE. I am asking. The gentleman seemed concerned, and I am
asking him if he has any intent to do that.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. As the gentleman well knows, there has
been a great deal of concern on both sides of the aisle about the
functioning of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United
States. There is a consensus, I believe, that CFIUS slipped up on this
Dubai Ports deal and that CFIUS needs to be strengthened.
Mr. PEARCE. If I may reclaim my time.

{time} 1215

Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. You asked me a question about the 77
legal positions in the general counsel and the directive that the next
hiring be to strengthen up this CFIUS capacity.
Mr. PEARCE. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his
answer, and I did hear him say that those are valid contracts, but I
would point out and I'm reading now from a January 17 bill where the
majority in their H.R. 6 bill, the Washington Post editorial says,
``The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on
firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.''
And it says, ``The main problem with the House bill is that hitting
up oil companies is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. The
Nation needs to accelerate the development of less-carbon-intensive
fuels,'' and it declares in this that the heavy-handed attack of H.R. 6
is something that would be welcome in Russia and Bolivia and other
countries but not in the U.S.
And so my point is that the gentleman's party has already decided
that contracts are not especially valid, but I would simply say that if
contracts are valid contracts, then they should be valid throughout the
spectrum of vision that the gentleman has.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H6353]]

First, I'd like to start out by saying that I do serve on the
Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. It's a
deep honor for me to be there. It's a deep honor for me to work with
Chairman Price, who is an honorable man and has done hard work on this
bill. It's an honor for me to work with Ranking Member Rogers, who has
done hard work on this bill.
And I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that
there has been a lot of diligence on this bill, a lot of hard work on
this bill, and in my opinion, every Member of this Congress probably
has, as a first thought, what the Homeland Security Department does to
protect our families from terrorists around the world and from other
disasters that can strike our families. I can assure you that this
subcommittee certainly does that.
This hard work being done does not mean that there aren't differences
of opinion on how things should be done because, in fact, in our very
subcommittee, and in the overall committee of the Appropriations
Committee, there is a difference of opinion on directions that we
should take.
Just, for example, on the issue of the border fence, there are those
who think that the border fence needs to be built and it needs to be
built now, and all obstructions have to be taken away from that that
might obstruct building that fence. I happen to be one of those people,
and yet, honorable men and women disagree. And those who are in the
majority, they do set the policy for the bill that is before us today.
I personally think that it's our duty and responsibility as Members
of Congress to debate the issues, whether you're on the Appropriations
Committee or not, and by raising issues that are being raised on this
side of the aisle on this bill, that we are saying that the
Appropriations Committee has not done their job. We're saying we want
to put a microscope, put sunshine on the process and see what we see,
and then each Member, whether they be right on their amendment or
whether they be wrong on their amendment, certainly has the
responsibility to submit their opinion on this bill.
We talk about a term that I think that's kind of peculiar, and I
certainly was not a Member of this Congress when whoever came up with
the term ``earmark,'' but there's a whole lot of folks in the United
States that know what an earmark is, and it doesn't have anything to do
with what we're doing here in Congress today.
It has to do with a method of identifying livestock, and in old days
and maybe in some more rustic scenes today, an earmark was actually the
notch cut in the ear of an animal. Now, I'm sure that's offensive to
many people, but today, it generally is a tattoo or a tag that
designates what the owner intends to do with that animal. And at least
in the ranching business, they go out and they mark those that are the
keepers and the culls. There are the animals that they're going to keep
in their breeding stock, and there are the culls which are the ones
they're going to take to market and sell as one way the earmark
functions.
And the owner of that livestock designates someone to make that
designation of how they should earmark the livestock, and I assume that
whoever came up with the term ``earmark'' as it relates to special
projects in the appropriations process thought it was a good term
because basically, that's the decisions that the owner, i.e., the
voter, the American public, asks their individual representative to
make about the spending on special projects that's going to be done by
the United States Congress.
And so who is the designated person for the 31st Congressional
District to make this decision? And I think the people elected me to do
that. I think there are 435 individual people here that the folks who
originally own this money and gave it to us to use, they said you make
the decision on how this money is going to be spent. This is a
republic, and we have sent our representative to speak on our behalf to
say this is a project that has worth and this is a project that has no
worth; this is a keeper and that is a cull.
And that is actually the duty and the responsibility by our oath of
every person who sits in every chair of this House.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Carter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are in this debate today, one
of the reasons, is we have created a process where instead of 435
people will meet their constitutional obligation of their oath to
determine how the earmarks will be spent, we have narrowed it down to
one or whatever his designation may be, and I think that is
inappropriate, although I will say and I wish to end by saying Mr. Obey
is an honorable man, and I have the greatest respect for him.
But that's not the way we were supposed to act when we came to
Congress. We were supposed to participate in this process of
determining the earmarks.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
As a New Yorker, I must tell you as honestly and openly as I can,
that the hours that we have spent on this issue are an embarrassment,
an affront to every New Yorker who experienced 9/11, who went down to
that site, and saw our brave men and women responding to the emergency,
every New Yorker who went to a funeral, to talk to a family about the
loss of their loved one because of the lack of interoperability for one
thing.
I cannot understand how my friends on the other side could be
spending all these hours debating earmarks when we should be passing
one of the most important bills of the House.
As Chair of the committee that funds State and Foreign Operations,
I've always worked in a bipartisan way. I know my good friends, David
Price and Hal Rogers, have always worked in a bipartisan way. We should
get on with the business of this bill, and I would be embarrassed to
have a constituent watch us, spend all night, all day focusing on
Member-directed projects.
You and I know that they need to be evaluated. A process has been in
place for transparency. I think we've moved in a very positive
direction. So let's get on with the business of this bill.
We have no higher priority than to take every action necessary to
protect our country, and I would just like to highlight a few of the
provisions in this bill that are so important.
The first would create a pilot program to screen airport workers, and
I've worked in a bipartisan way on this issue. In March, two airport
workers in Orlando boarded a plane and made it to Puerto Rico with a
bag containing firearms and drugs, and this incident set off an alarm,
reminding us that we've waited far too long to take sufficient action.
Those who have unfettered access to sterile and secure areas of
airports need to be physically screened. Meticulously screening
passengers but giving workers open access is like installing an
expensive home security system and leaving the back door open. This
bill is the first step to close this loophole, something that is
supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.
Aviation security enhancements are not limited to airport worker
screening. The bill makes the necessary investment to purchase and
install explosive detection systems. Last year, British authorities
uncovered a plot to destroy airliners over the Atlantic, which the
terrorists believed would be on the same scale as the September 11
attack. We have to do all we can to reduce our vulnerabilities,
particularly to known threats that terrorists have attempted to
exploit.
The second item I would like to applaud is the inclusion of much-
needed funds for interoperability grants. After September 11, I wrote a
bill to require the administration to create an office and grant
program dedicated to interoperability and to implement a national
strategy. Since that time, the office has been created, and last year's
appropriations bill included my strategy proposal. This bill would fund
that grant program, which the House overwhelmingly approved in January
as part of the 9/11 bill.
I encourage all of my colleagues to go back to their districts and
ask first responders what the Federal Government can do to help them. I
guarantee that one of the most frequent responses will be
interoperability and communications problems. This bill provides not
only the funding, but language on standards and other planning
provisions that are beneficial.

[[Page H6354]]

Third, this bill significantly enhances our ability to protect our
ports. One of the biggest fears of security experts is that a terrorist
will bring a nuclear weapon into the country through a port. This bill
nearly doubles the funding for grants to protect ports and provides
much-needed funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to
develop and deploy the next generation of radiation portal monitors.
A fourth improvement is transit security. In the last 5 years,
terrorists have attacked trains in Madrid, London and Mumbai.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Lowey) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, this bill would provide $400 million, more
than twice the amount previously provided, for first responders to
reduce this glaring vulnerability.
This bill is full of substantive provisions to assist first
responders that we need to debate. For example, I look forward to
considering several substantive amendments such as one submitted by my
friend on the other side of the aisle that would assist a program that
provides a ring around New York to prevent a terrorist from bringing a
nuclear weapon into the city. But we can't have that debate and others
about making our Nation safer if the minority continues to insist on
pushing procedural roadblocks.
In addition to serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee, I'm a
member of the Homeland Security authorizing committee. We know that the
threats against our country are real. Let's end these procedural
delaying tactics.
Although the chairman, the ranking member and the members of the
committee have produced a really important bill, I know that many
Members who are here getting up to speak may have additional thoughts,
additional ideas to make our homeland safer. Shame on all of us if
we're spending the time arguing procedural tactics and not focusing on
the homeland security issues that are before us. As a New Yorker, I am
personally offended. Let's move on with it.

{time} 1230

Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is there is never a last
word. There is a big debate going on about earmarks, when there are
none in the bill. There were none in last year's bill or the year
before's bill. This is the first bill to come before the floor, and
they attack this bill saying where are the earmarks.
Well, there are none. Speakers on the other side of the aisle can't
stand the fact that there is a new congressional leadership here. It's
rolling up its sleeves and doing the oversight work, the oversight work
for an agency called Homeland Security that was created just a few
years ago, the biggest bureaucracy in modern American history, 200,000
employees, $36 billion in expenditure, made up of all kinds of things
from airports, seaports, Border Patrol, immigration, the list goes on
and on.
The leadership of this committee decided to really put some fact-
finding into it. It had more hearings than any committee in history in
this subject matter, visited more sites, visited the borders, the hot
spots, visited Katrina sites, talked with Customs and Border Patrol,
with harbor district patrol, with Coast Guard, with truck inspectors at
the Ota Mesa truck center, the biggest truck inspection center in the
word; with the San Ysidro crossing, the largest traffic crossing in the
world.
You know what every one of those patrolmen and inspectors told me? We
can't do our job unless you pass a comprehensive immigration bill. It's
not just about more fences and more assets on the border. It's about
the whole enchilada, the whole immigration bill.
I think there is an underlying current here. They don't want an
immigration bill, and they know that this is the agency that deals with
it. So it's a delay tactic.
Now, a delay tactic, we have been here for 24 hours. We have taken up
two amendments. The first amendment cuts $79,000 out of the
administrative office of Homeland Security, $79,000 out of a $36
billion bill. But, wait, they adopted a second amendment. It was for a
cut for $300,000.
We have successfully cut $379,000 out of a $36 billion bill. It's
taken us 24 hours, numerous procedural votes to adjourn, to rise, to do
anything but deal with the issue. We ought to be very proud of
ourselves.
We have been able to cut one one-thousandth of 1 percent. That's what
the great might of the United States Congress has been doing on this
bill.
Now, I know that the other side of the aisle likes to cut, squeeze,
and trim. They are cutting the agency that they like the most. They are
cutting an agency created by President Bush, they are cutting the money
that President Bush asked for in this bill, and they have introduced
another 110 amendments to deal with more cuts, more frivolity.
Where's your leadership? This is an important bill. It's probably the
best-combed bill, best-managed bill in the history of this agency. You
ought to be proud of it. You were proud of it in committee, because
nobody voiced a negative vote.
So it was unanimous in the Appropriations Committee, everybody liked
the bill. Where is your leadership? Where is your responsibility?

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair must ask the gentleman to address his
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about finding the answers to
interoperability. You have seen that we have interoperability right
here. This bill is about responding to first responders, to be a first
responder.
The other side of the aisle is neither operable nor responsible for
being first responders. Don't call on them next time there is help
needed.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as I look at the flag behind the Speaker's chair, I am
reminded about how great our country truly is. If our country is going
to remain great, we have to face the threats that are out there, and
there are many, many threats.
Clearly, the Homeland Security appropriations bill is an important
piece of work to deal with those threats. But there is a threat that's
not quite so insidious, and it's the threat of spending, runaway
spending in the face of the second largest tax increase in American
history.
We need to get serious about this threat, this threat to future
generations. We owe it to the American family to be responsible
stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars.
I am gravely concerned about the disconnect between a lot of the high
rhetoric I hear coming from the other side and the harsh reality that
we seem to face here. The rhetoric we hear from the Democratic
leadership is about fiscal responsibility and oversight and
transparency and full disclosure. But the harsh reality is about none
of those things.
I don't see full disclosure here. I don't see transparency. I am
deeply concerned about this threat of runaway spending.
Now, I have to say, I fully appreciate the hard work done by the
Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee and the full committee.
The chairman of the committee, the full committee, and the
subcommittee, as well as the respective ranking members, have done a
lot of hard work.
But their work is incomplete. Their work is definitely incomplete.
It's the responsibility of every Member of this body to provide
oversight, not just the committee's responsibilities. That is our
responsibility, and we have to live up to it.
It is clearly a major responsibility as we look at these possible
earmarks that are going to be airdropped into this at a later date. The
process is clearly flawed, and the American people clearly deserve
better.
I reflect upon a statement by a very famous British statesman, when
the British Empire was at its height in the 18th century, and it goes
like this: ``Magnanimity is seldom not the wisest course for a
statesman, for empire and small minds go ill together.''
I would submit to you that magnanimity is a very important American
virtue, and magnanimity is also the responsibility of the majority,
whoever happens to be in the majority.
I ask the majority to live up to its responsibilities.

[[Page H6355]]

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WHITFIELD. Before I speak, I would like to make one parliamentary
inquiry.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. WHITFIELD. If I yield time to the gentlelady from North Carolina
at the end of my remarks, and if she made a decision that the House do
now rise, is that permissible?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Kentucky would first have to
yield back his time in order for a motion to be in order for the
committee to rise.
Mr. WHITFIELD. But I can yield time to her for her to speak?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield to her during his 5
minutes.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the
chairman of the subcommittee on the Democratic side and also on the
Republican side for the hard work that they have shown in establishing
this appropriation bill for Homeland Security.
Last night I was reading a poll, and I noticed that Congress, as an
institution, has an approval rating of less than 30 percent. That
certainly is not caused by the leadership of the Democratic Party,
because when the Republicans were in control a few months ago, Congress
had an approval rating of less than 30 percent also.
But I think it reflects the frustration of the American people about
the institution of Congress and how Congress works. I welcome this
debate on the earmarks, because I do not view this as a delaying
tactic, but I think this is an issue that is even deeper than earmarks
and the way that they're handled by the Appropriations Committee.
I am speaking specifically of the fact that the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee yesterday mentioned that there was something
like 32,000 earmark requests, and that there was not ample time to get
through these appropriations bills. Yet every year Congress is consumed
by the appropriations process, and every year it takes more and more
time, and every year, frequently, we do not even pass all the
appropriations bills in the House and the Senate, and we do continuing
resolutions, and then we do omnibus bills. The omnibus bills come to
the floor, and sometimes they are 8 or 9,000 pages and Members don't
even know what's in there, and we are voting on those.
I would remind the Members that about 6 years ago we introduced
legislation that would ask the House to go to a 2-year budget and 2-
year appropriations process. That bill received over 200 votes in
support of it, because I think all of us recognize that this
appropriations process and budget process that we now operate under is
broken. It simply does not work.
One of the frustrations, I will be very honest about it, on the
earmarks is that there is a perception among Members who are not on the
Appropriations Committee that the vast majority of earmarks go to the
appropriators.
Yet all of us represent the same number of people, all of us
represent taxpayers, and all of us are entitled to earmarks.
But it's an unfair process.
I know, from discussions that I have had with a lot of Members, I
know appropriators get upset with authorizers and say authorizers are
not doing their job, and authorizers get upset with appropriators in
saying appropriators are authorizing on appropriations bills when they
want to.
So I think what this institution needs to do is go to a 2-year budget
process, a 2-year appropriations process so that one year we can sit
here and argue about money, but the next year we can argue about
authorization and reforming education and health care and some of the
substantive problems that the American people face instead of every
year being totally consumed by the appropriation process.
To me, that's the problem we have today.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments that have
been made on the other side. I share the concern that the gentlelady
from New York said that this is an embarrassment. She is right. It is
an embarrassment that we have to be doing this, but it's an
embarrassment to the majority party, because there are principles
involved here.
You promised things you are not fulfilling. That's why we are
bringing these issues up, and we're going to continue to quote the
things that are happening and remind you that that's the reason.
CNN.com today: ``Obey says that earmarks can still be scrutinized
before the spending bills go into effect, but nonpartisan advocacy
groups like Public Citizen says it's not enough.'' Craig Holman,
legislative representative for Public Citizen: ``It violates the whole
spirit of the reform itself. We really did expect that earmark requests
were going to be an open book so that all of America could sit there
and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks.''
We're not saying we are opposed to the underlying bill and we're not
doing this for delaying tactics.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Whitfield) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Foxx was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I also point out that last year, when we
debated this bill, the majority party offered 70 amendments to the bill
and took over 2 legislative days. We have not even been in this for one
legislative day yet, and we're getting complaints that we are utilizing
delaying tactics. Let's not say what we should not be doing.
Last night, also, Mr. Obey said that professionals will look at these
earmarks. We get complaints all the time that the staff runs this
place.
I'm offended by that remark. This is a job for the Members of
Congress to be doing. This is not a job for the staff to be doing. I
consider we are professionals at this business, and we don't need to
delegate the looking at earmarks to staff members. We need to be doing
that ourselves, and we need to do it in this process.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if my colleagues think holding
hostage the Homeland Security bill, the bill that funds and protects
our cities, our communities, our seaports, our airports from threat of
terrorism, if they think that holding up that bill is going to win back
the majority, I would suggest that's the same type of out-of-touch
approach that caused them to lose their majority in the last Congress.
One of the reasons they lost that majority, the American people
wanted this Congress to put first things first to deal with the highest
priorities of this country. Yet the previous leadership on the other
side of the aisle, constantly, day after day, month after month, got us
involved in unimportant issues.

{time} 1245

With the new leadership, we're trying to take a new approach.
What's happened, to summarize, this week, we had the chairman, Mr.
Price of North Carolina, the chairman of the Homeland Security
Appropriations Subcommittee, who put together a bipartisan bill that
passed without opposition on a bipartisan basis in the full
Appropriations Committee.
Then, the Republican leadership comes along and says, uh-oh, we've
got to make a point, and let's hold the Homeland Security
Appropriations bill hostage.
If they think that's what the American people want, I think they're
sadly out of touch with the priority of Americans in wanting, above
else, this Congress to work together to defend our communities and our
families.
Where are we? Well, we have Republicans that failed to pass 11 of 13
appropriations bills in the last Congress, they're now trying to kill
appropriation bills in this Congress.
What do we have? We have the architects of the largest increase in
earmarks in congressional history lecturing us and the American people
about earmarks today. And the sad thing is, that not only are they
holding hostage the Homeland Security appropriations bill to protect
our families and communities, I would speak as the chairman of the
Veterans' Affairs and

[[Page H6356]]

Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee in saying that this
delaying tactic is holding up a bill that should be on the floor right
now that will provide the largest increase in veterans health care
spending in our Nation's history.
So not only is the Republican leadership in this House holding up
homeland security, now they are delaying the passage of important
legislation that our veterans and our military troops and their
families deserve.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the rest of my time to
the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for his very
helpful comments. And I want to pick up where Mr. Pearce left us a few
minutes ago. I never had a chance to respond to his comments about
unspent funding. So I want to take just a minute, if I might, to talk
about what the committee, in fact, has done about grants and what kind
of funding is available for those versus what we're going to
appropriate for fiscal 2008.
We have made some key investments in this bill in State and local
grants. The State grants are a modest increase over last year,
something like 6 percent. But we've made much more substantial
increases in transit and rail grants, which I think, on a bipartisan
basis, Members of this House have said is a vulnerability. Certainly
they said that on the port security matter with the Safe Ports Act. We
have made some increases there.
Fire grants, have broad bipartisan support, as does the SAFER
program. So in a number of these areas, we have gone somewhat above
last year's funding and above the President's request. But we've done
that on the basis of strong evidence and strong bipartisan support that
this is needed.
Now, what about the allegation that this money is in the pipeline,
that we really don't need to turn to the appropriations process for
additional funding?
The charge was made that there's $5 billion unspent in these grant
programs. Well, $4 billion of that is obligated. That leaves $1
billion. Let's talk about the $1 billion. $600 million of the $1
billion of unobligated funds are from funds awarded to States and
localities during the last 6 months. The remaining $400 million in so-
called unobligated funds are from older grants that are actually most
likely obligated.
The Department tells us they're only now bringing older data on-line
into their grant system, but it's very, very likely that all of that
$400 million is obligated.
So forget about $5 billion in unspent funds. It isn't there. We must
face up to the implications of needing to do more in these various
grant areas.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for two
additional minutes?
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Price.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Now, if the allegation is that the
Department of Homeland Security has not been nimble enough, has not
been responsive enough in getting the grant funds out there, then you
certainly won't get an argument from us. Our approach has been to work
cooperatively with the Department to improve performance.
There are two provisions in particular in this bill to ensure that
Federal bureaucratic hurdles are lessened so that the funds can be used
for their intended purpose more efficiently.
As in prior years, the bill mandates that within 60 days of
enactment, 80 percent of the State Homeland Security grant funds must
be passed through from States to localities. And, as in prior years,
the bill mandates a schedule for DHS to issue grant guidance and make
grant awards, ensuring that funding reaches grantees in the shortest
time possible.
Now, we need to continue pressing. We need to continue working on
this. But I think, in pressing the Department for responsive grant
programs, we have bipartisan support on that. And in putting the money
where we need to put it to make these additional areas safer, we have
support on that as well.
All I can say is it would be nice if we would get on to discussing
the substance of the bill, as opposed to dealing with desultory
tactics.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, this has been quite a process
since we got rolling yesterday afternoon, and I know there's some
frustration over not moving more quickly. But I do think Mr. Boehner
made the point very clearly last night and it needs to be reiterated
often, that we are simply seeking to have the opportunity to review the
earmarks as a body while we can have some impact on it, rather than to
have them, as has been said, airdropped into a conference report, where
conference reports come to the floor and you have two options only. You
can't amend it. You can either adopt the conference report, or you can
reject the conference report. As we all know, it's very, very rare to
reject a conference report on an appropriations bill. I only remember
seeing that happen once since I've been here.
And I just think that, in light of all the rhetoric, particularly
from the other side, about the need to have more transparency, and then
an action is taken which completely eliminates the progress that had
already been made relative to transparency and relative to
accountability, and this whole process today really is about are we
going to have the opportunity to review the earmarks in these bills,
while we can make an impact on it, while we can single some out and
remove them, while we can offer amendments, or are we going to simply
turn a blind eye, let this be dropped into the conference report?
Basically, only, you know, mainly one person is going to control this
whole process, and the entire rest of the House is shut out from this
process.
That's why this process is moving so slowly, because of this
fundamental battle. And, you know, it's seeming like every major media
outlet in the country seems to be on the side of transparency and
accountability, and yet the majority party continues down this road of
avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability. And no good reason has
yet been offered as to why we should take this extraordinary move going
completely backwards on this issue, instead of having this out here in
the light of day as it was intended, as we all argued for both sides
should be the case. And that's what we're seeking to ultimately have
prevail before this day is out.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to our ranking
member, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I
join in his frustration. This dispute about how the majority party is
hiding earmarks so that the body cannot inspect them, is preventing us
from discussing the merits of this bill, which, by and large, is an
excellent bill, except for it's overspending. And I'll have an
amendment at the end of the bill to address that issue.
So there's really two issues we're talking about here; one is the
earmark mess that we're in, and secondly, is the overspending in the
bill.
The President has threatened to veto this bill if it exceeds a 7
percent increase. The bill now contains a 13.6 percent increase in
spending. That's too much. We really don't need that much money. We do
need, I think, a 7 percent increase, which is double inflation. That
would take care of the needs that Homeland Security has.
And so at the end of the bill, I will be offering an amendment to
give Members a chance to vote to slice 5.7 percent, across the board,
off of the spending in this bill, leaving a 7.2 percent increase that
has been requested of us by the executives.
And so, I would hope that Members would bear that in mind. At the end
of the bill, you're going to have a chance to exercise fiscal
responsibility. That's what we stand for. Fiscal responsibility.
So I would urge Members to hold their fire until that time.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I'll yield.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Let me just ask a question for
clarification on the amendment that is before us which actually has
barely been mentioned this morning. Is it not true that neither the
McHenry amendment nor the Foxx amendment would be, in effect,
incorporated in your amendment, since our expenditures for the item at
issue

[[Page H6357]]

are already below the President's request?
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If the gentleman would yield.
At the end of the bill, we will have to see what amendments have
passed, and then we will look at that and see whether or not that would
fit into our across the board cut, and if it might be modified to that
extent.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman already spoken twice, on the
amendment and the second-degree amendment?
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Not on this amendment. I spoke on one of the other
amendments.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today, and I want to indicate how
important this bill, H.R. 2638, is to the entire country as a whole.
This bill has particular significance for any American concerned about
promoting the necessary and difficult objective of protecting our
homeland.
As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
it has been a pleasure for me to work with the chairman and the
leadership on adding language and enhancing the quality of this bill
and strengthening the general provisions of it.
As a Member who represents a district that goes from both the Texas
to the Mexico border, I'm distinctly aware of challenges that confront
law enforcement officers charged with upholding criminal laws such as
the drug and human trafficking. In recognition of this inherent danger
represented to the law enforcement officials, also to private
landowners along the border, and elected officials concerned about the
border issues and statutory requirements imposed on the Department of
Homeland Security to erect, also, the fence barriers that span 370
miles along the southwestern borders. I was also pleased to dialogue
with the chairman on these issues and making sure that we go about them
in the right way.
The first objective that I want to just briefly mention and talk
briefly about is the fact that our border communities need additional
resources. This bill begins to provide those resources. Our law
enforcement on the cities, as well as the sheriffs that are unanimously
in favor of doing what they can to protect our borders and to protect
our communities need help, and they need help drastically. This bill
begins to provide this assistance.
I wanted to, again, reemphasize the fact that this bill is an
essential bill that allows us to be able to protect this country in a
way that we should. I know the other side has talked about the
bureaucracy and the fact that we haven't responded appropriately, and I
agree with them. We haven't, and that's why we have added some
additional resources. That's why we also had 22 hearings of which I can
tell you, because I have been here prior to this, and we had not had
hearings the way we've had now to hold the agencies accountable. No one
knows that better than myself.
I just had a community in Eagle Pass that went through a tornado that
killed seven people, also hit the Mexican side, killing three, and the
difficulty that I had in getting FEMA to respond and the administration
to respond. So I understand the incompetency that exists within this
administration and the fact that we've had difficulty in getting them
to respond to our needs.
But the bottom line is that when we're hit with floods, when we're
hit with drought, when we're hit with tornados and other, we have to be
able to have the resources necessary for them to be able to do that.
And so when we were hit in Eagle Pass, I remember distinctly going
through there. I also went over on the Mexican side, and I deliberately
went over there also because I know that they had been hit harder.

{time} 1300

And I also went back because I know that the Mexicans, especially
from the state of Coahuila, had come to help us during Katrina. They
sent their support there in San Antonio, helping to feed some 20,000
that had come to San Antonio from Katrina, and I know that they had
been extremely helpful.
But we have got to make sure that FEMA has the resources and that
they are also held accountable. I know that we are going to continue to
have additional hearings in order to make that happen.
I also want to personally thank our leader for helping us with the
Stonegarden project.
I would like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
And I commend him in turn for his work on getting help to the people
dealing with the burdens of law enforcement in these border
communities. That is what Stonegarden is all about. And he, together
with colleagues on the Republican side, advocated very strongly for the
Stonegarden funding in this bill.
We also have struck a balance at the gentleman's request. Some very
careful work was done on what kind of consultation is desirable and
necessary with affected communities before these border barriers are
put into place.
So we make no apologies for holding the Department accountable for
the technology that is utilized and the plan that is adopted so as to
be as effective as possible, to be economical, and also to be
responsive to these very particular border communities.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Rodriguez, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Price of
North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. There has been, Mr. Chairman, a steady
flow of town and city officials from Texas in particular who have come
to Washington to voice their concerns. We are going to visit them in
very short order now to have a first-hand look before this bill goes to
conference.
But the work that we have done on this issue, I believe, does strike
the desirable balance. We appreciate the Members' input on that because
these communities are concerned that the construction of this barrier
not go on without some regard for their history and their needs.
Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank
Chairman Price.
I know that you also provided some guidance as we went to New Orleans
and visited New Orleans and got an opportunity to see still the
devastation and the fact that we haven't done enough there, and I want
to personally thank you for the leadership in that area. We not only
went there, but you also took the committee along the border to look at
the fences that are out there, the barriers for cars and those things
that are important.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on Ms. Foxx's amendment, and I thank
her for being one that realizes one of the threats that we face is a
growing Federal budget and out-of-control Federal spending.
And as we have talked about threats this morning as we are debating
this Homeland Security budget, it is not lost on us that this is a
$36.3 billion budget. It is 13.6 percent more than last year and, as
our ranking member has so wisely stated, 6 percent more than was asked
for and more money than needs to be in that budget. And, certainly, it
does not make good fiscal sense that this would be the type of budget
document, this would be the type of appropriations that would be passed
for this.
As we talk about threats, one of my colleagues mentioned that we were
holding hostage the budget and loved using that term ``holding
hostage.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that probably the American
people who watch this debate feel like they are the ones that are many
times held hostage and their paychecks are held hostage by the Federal
Government.
The Federal Government has first right of refusal on that paycheck.
They take out what they want before the taxpayers and our constituents
see that paycheck. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think they are
tired of it.
And they are tired of the type of out-of-control spending that they
are seeing from this new majority. They didn't like the spending that
was there when we were there. Certainly there are many of us that think
that we spent too much, and certainly many of

[[Page H6358]]

us worked very hard for the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget,
that reduced $40 billion of Federal spending.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think the American people thought that
you all were going to do better than that, that you were going to cut
more than we had cut. But that is not what they are seeing.
We have got hundreds of billions of dollars more in spending
certainly, $105 billion more in new appropriations, 13 percent more in
this single budget alone. It is out of control. Our constituents feel
like their paychecks are held hostage, and, quite frankly, we think
information is being held hostage.
Now, on the security issue and on this fence, sometimes those of us
who are mothers talk about setting up situations that are going to be
win-win situations for our children. We like to create an environment
where things can succeed. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, when it
comes to funding the fence, what the liberal leadership has done is set
up a failure, because what you do is underfund the fence. Then you come
along and $700 million of this funding gets pulled into this gray
bureaucratic red tape area that probably you are never going to see
that fence built.
Now, we had a vote last year. We had 283 Members of this body go to a
machine, put in their card, and punch the green button for the fence.
That was the vote that was taken. So that leads us to say was that a
politically motivated vote? Did they do that because they thought they
were looking for reelection? Did they feel like that was what their
constituents wanted? Because, certainly, we know one of the things we
hear from many of our constituents is ``secure the border first.''
But now we have a Homeland Security bill and in this $36.3 billion
with a 13.6 percent increase over last year, we can't find the
appropriate amount of money to fully fund a fence. And that is
something that the American people want to see done.
Mr. Chairman, the debate that is taking place here, quite frankly, I
think, is a very good debate. It is the type of debate we ought to
have, and we ought to do this more often so that people can see what
are the philosophies of the left and what are the philosophies of the
right. So then they can get an understanding for the philosophical
differences of how we view how to go about our jobs, how we view going
about handling the taxpayers' money. I think this is a good thing for
us to come here and talk about if we want to spend more, if we want to
spend 13.6 percent more, or if we want to return to the model of the
Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, and reduce $40 billion worth of
spending.
Mr. HALL of New York. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, before I address the Homeland Security Appropriations
bill, I just wanted to comment that it is interesting, some might say
entertaining, to be given a lesson in fiscal responsibility by those
Members who helped to run up the biggest deficit and the biggest
balance of trade deficit that this country has ever seen. But we will
let that go.
For now I would just like to talk about, first of all, the fact that
there are no earmarks in this bill. To talk about earmarks on a bill,
the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which has no earmarks is
inappropriate and just a distraction.
In terms of first responders, the part that I would like to address,
it is particularly important to my district, New York's 19th, which
served and continues to serve New York City. Orange County in my
district is the farthest north that first responders from New York are
allowed to live. The firemen and policemen of New York may live only
that far north from New York City because of needing to be there when
they are called in a hurry. And as a result, we have had many fire and
police who lost their lives on 9/11 and many are subsequently suffering
from respiratory ailments from working on the Ground Zero pile. So we
know, not only from that but from planning for other incidents,
accidents, attacks that we need to be ready for, that first responders
need our help and they need it from this bill, and this bill gives it
to them.
This bill gives it to them through Homeland Security grants, which
meet the needs of first responders including hiring, training, and
equipping first responders. The President proposed slashing the grants
by 52 percent. Instead, our bill restores this cut, providing $550
million, which is $25 million above fiscal year 2007 and $300 million
above the President's request for Homeland Security grants.
Local law enforcement terrorism prevention programs, this $375
million program plays a key role in assisting local law enforcement
agents in information sharing, target hardening, and counter-terrorism
planning. The President's budget eliminates this program. Our bill
provides $400 million, which is $25 million above fiscal year 2007.
Firefighter assistance grants, the President proposed to slash these
grants by 55 percent. Instead, this bill restores the cut, providing
$570 million, $23 million above fiscal year 2007 and $270 million above
the President's request. And SAFER grants, the President proposed
eliminating these Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response,
SAFER, $115 million SAFER grants. The program was eliminated by the
President in his proposal. We, instead, provide $230 million, which is
$115 million above fiscal year 2007.
So in every instance in which first responders need our help, need
the Federal Government's assistance, to be able to respond to fire,
police, and other security and public safety issues and events, we are
trying to provide them with the resources that they need over the
President's objections and over his cuts.
I am proud to support this bill, and I submit that I personally don't
have any earmarks in it, and I don't know of anybody else who does. So
let's please not discuss it in those terms but in terms of what makes
the American people safer.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the debate last
evening and today. And I have heard a number of complaints and concerns
from our friends on the other side of the aisle. First let me speak to
the process.
There are a lot of complaints that somehow we are spending too much
time debating this appropriations bill. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would
point out that the last appropriations bill, the one that funded our
troops in harm's way, this body spent almost 4 months, almost 4 months,
coming up with that appropriations bill. And, Mr. Chairman, as I look
at the clock, we haven't even debated this one yet for 24 hours.
Mr. Chairman, we also hear that, well, if you care about homeland
security, you have to pass this bill and you have to pass it today.
Don't you care about homeland security? Well, Mr. Chairman, as an
appropriations bill, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in
this bill that will go into effect until October 1. So here we are in
June and we are being told, no, we can't submit to Democratic
procedures here. We can't thoroughly vet and debate this important
bill. It has to be passed today, even though it doesn't go into effect
until October.
And then, Mr. Chairman, we have heard, well, the reason that we don't
have our earmarks listed in the bill, the reason that there is this
secret slush fund that someday somehow will be unveiled to all is
because, well, the staff hasn't had time to vet all of these earmarks.

{time} 1315

Well, Mr. Chairman, again, when our friends from the other side of
the aisle took over as the majority and rewrote the rules, apparently
they didn't read their own rules very well. Members on both sides of
the aisle became confused. Nobody even knew how to submit their earmark
request.
So then to turn around and somehow point to this side of the aisle
when it was that side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that created the
problem. I mean, it's like the old proverbial person who is being
indicted for murder who says, Well, please don't convict me, I know I
killed my parents, but now I'm an orphan. Well, they are the ones who
caused the problem, Mr. Chairman, so I don't quite understand why they
are complaining about the process that brought us here in the first
place.
As I listen to the debate, Mr. Chairman, and I do believe this is an
important bill, and I believe there is a lot of

[[Page H6359]]

important work and very important provisions in this bill, but I think
also there seems to be, as I listen closely to the debate on the other
side of the aisle, there seems to be no appreciation whatsoever of the
role the poor, beleaguered taxpayer plays in homeland security, like
there is some unlimited vault from the workers of America to pay for
all of this.
Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the aisle, by refusing to do
anything about entitlement spending, have put us on a fiscal course to
where the next generation won't even have a Department of Homeland
Security. Let us learn the lessons of history or we will be condemned
to repeat them.
One of the reasons that the Soviet Union, the evil empire, doesn't
exist anymore is because their economy collapsed. They could not keep
pace. Their workers could not produce what was necessary to defend that
state. And now we are looking at our friends from this side of the
aisle putting us on a fiscal course that would render our total
inability to provide for a Department of Homeland Security.
Now, I know the easy thing to do is kick the can down the road, worry
about the next election, don't worry about the next generation; but Mr.
Chairman, I don't think that is worthy of this body.
Mr. Chairman, ultimately this comes down to the role of earmarks and
our ability to fund this. As my colleague in the other body, Senator
Coburn of Oklahoma, has said, earmarks are the gateway drug to spending
addiction. Now, I know there are many good earmarks, there are many
worthy earmarks; I myself do not request them. But for many Members
they have become that gateway drug to spending addiction, making it
more difficult to fund our homeland security. Those on the other side
of the aisle campaigned for increased transparency, and all we are
asking is that Members have the ability to strike at these.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I can understand why there would be some confusion on the other side
about why we would need to move these appropriations bills in a timely
manner because, yes, the fiscal year starts October 1. So what is the
urgency, I'm hearing.
I can understand why there is a lack of recognition of the urgency
because in the 12 years, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican Party
controlled this House, they were able to complete all the
appropriations bills on time exactly zero times. They were unable to do
it any time in the 12 years they controlled this House.
So, yes, I understand there is some confusion about the process and
why it is important to get these bills out on time.
If anyone is interested, the last time that all the appropriations
bills were completed on time was 1994, which perhaps, by coincidence,
was the last time the Democrats controlled the process in this House.
So we do understand the urgency of getting these bills done on time;
and we do understand that October 1 is going to be here and we need to
complete work on these bills.
Certainly, what has happened in the House the last couple of days,
and I would expect is going to happen over the remaining course of the
week, and perhaps months, does not bode well for our ability to do that
because we are facing a lot of obstruction. I think it would be
instructive to talk about what is actually in this bill rather than
talk about the procedural gimmickry which is going on to prevent us
from passing this bill.
The bipartisan Homeland Security Appropriations bill provides
critical funding to improve the Nation's homeland security and
implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which have
languished for more than 4 years now. One of the first things we did in
the first hours of this House was to vote to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations. This bill moves us in that direction; it
enables us to do that with the funding that is required. I don't think
that is something that should wait any longer. We have already waited 4
years from those recommendations. We have waited almost 6 years since
9/11 to see this take place.
This legislation strengthens border security. I hear a lot of talk
about border security and immigration. This bill provides emergency
first responders with additional training and equipment, and improves
aviation and port security, all important aspects of the 9/11
Commission recommendations.
We talk about immigration reform. This bill makes border security the
top priority by devoting substantial resources to secure our borders
not only against potential terrorists, but also to help stop the
growing flood of illegal immigrants entering our country each and every
day, totaling more than 12 million at this time.
In this bill, we invest in our Nation's most pressing security needs
by hiring 3,000 additional border security agents. That's what we are
talking about, we are going to secure the borders. We include $1
billion for fencing. I think that is as important to people on the
other side of the aisle as it is to people on our side of the aisle. I
don't know why they're delaying this; that $1 billion goes to fencing
infrastructure and technology along the U.S.-Mexican border.
We commit $2.1 billion to illegal immigrant detention and removal. We
hear about this ``catch and release'' program as part of the
immigration debate. This bill stakes a step in solving that problem. We
are in the process of debating that. Let's get it done. Let's stop all
the delaying tactics. Let's get this bill done.
This bill provides $550 million in State homeland security grants
which are used to hire, train, retain and equip emergency first
responders. Is there anyone in this House who doesn't think that's an
important priority that we should make a priority and get this bill
through the legislative process?
This bill increases funding for firefighter assistance grants.
Unfortunately, the President recommended a 55 percent reduction. We put
that money back in because I don't know that we can come up with any
more important segment of our society than our firefighters, the brave
men and women who put their lives on the line every day here at home to
keep us safe.
We improve aviation security by doubling the amount of cargo
screening on passenger aircraft, another key recommendation of the 9/11
Commission. So these are not things that should be delayed.
We invest in port security by providing $400 million in grants to
improve critical port facilities and infrastructure. And this Homeland
Security Appropriations bill includes strong oversight measures to
ensure careful spending of taxpayer dollars. I want you all to hear
that: It eliminates the wasteful, no-bid contracts that have led to
billions of dollars in losses.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Carter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Altmire was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. ALTMIRE. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is give our brave men
and women who respond to emergencies the tools and resources they need
to protect our communities. I can think of no better way to show the
American people that we are committed to this.
I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I just wish to correct your mistake in your opening statement.
I have been serving on this committee for the last 2 years, and the
House of Representatives has finished the appropriations process by the
4th of July both terms that I served in Congress. So I think the
statement made as an opening was a mistake.
Mr. ALTMIRE. Reclaiming my time, that has not been the case. The
House has not completed its work. These bills were not finished and
implemented by October 1.
Mr. CARTER. I beg to differ. These bills were passed by the House of
Representatives, in the last two terms I served on this committee,
before the 4th of July. I think you can check with the subcommittee
chairman, and he will agree with me on that.
Mr. ALTMIRE. The last time they were implemented on time was 1994.
Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in talking today about the Homeland Security
Appropriations measure, I would like to echo what the gentleman from
Texas was referring to. In the 2006 and 2005 calendar

[[Page H6360]]

years, we did finish the appropriations measures, all 13 of them, or 10
of them, by July 4. We worked diligently. The House got through with
its work on these appropriations bills.
There is probably no more important bill for the security of our
homeland than this appropriations measure. There are some positive
aspects in it, but the spending in it is mighty high.
It is my understanding that the gentlelady from Tennessee will be
offering an amendment that focuses on one area that I feel needs
additional expenditures of money, and that is with our secure border,
the need for fencing, the need for technology there that will prevent
the flood of illegals from coming into this country.
The focus of this legislation as a primary topic should be keeping
illegal aliens out of this country. During the past several weeks, I
have had more calls on that topic than any other measure. And I know a
number of the calls, letters, e-mails and faxes were due to the other
body's consideration of something called Comprehensive Immigration
Reform, which was certainly a misnomer. It was nothing but amnesty,
pure and simple, and the overwhelming majority of communications with
my office are in opposition to any type of amnesty. They want a fence
erected to keep illegal immigrants out.
You know, when we talk about earmarks, in my view there are some good
earmarks and there are some bad earmarks. I'm sure that I have a
perspective of my district. I like congressionally directed funding for
items that benefit the 5th District of Virginia. And I'm sure if you
went around the country, others would take a similar approach.
Some would have a policy of no earmarks at all. And let me say, if I
get to define earmarks, it would be fine with me if we cut out earmarks
right across the board. But some broad, general spending programs, in
my view, could also be designated as earmarks. And if we were to follow
the approach of the Representative from Texas and Arizona of
eliminating all earmarks totally, there would be, in my view, less
Federal spending.
There has been a lot of talk about transparency and the need for that
with regard to earmarks. One of the things that would get more media
attention, more newspaper focus, more television looking at the
individual, congressionally directed spending requests would be if they
were talked about, debated and voted on in committee. And then, when
they came to the floor, those individuals, whether they are on the
Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle, they
could stand up and focus on these individual items and say whether they
wanted them or whether they wanted to introduce amendments to strike
them and remove them from the bill.
Those who advocate transparency, in my view would do well to follow a
policy of putting in earmarks at the committee level, and then having
them debated here on the floor.
I hope that as the appropriations process goes forward with other
items of legislation beside homeland security, that we can follow that
rule so that we would get much greater attention and focus and, in my
view, transparency on earmarks.
In closing, I want to reiterate my support for the Blackburn
amendment that will increase funding for the fence and for border
security, and take it from certain other administrative areas in the
Department of Homeland Security.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would
like to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I
will consume about 15 seconds just to respond to the question that was
raised about the Republican track record in passing appropriations
bills.
The gentleman might want to talk about when the Labor-HHS bill was
passed last year. I think what he will find is that not only was it not
passed by July 1, it was not passed at all.
Mr. ISRAEL. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there
is a legitimate debate on the question of earmarks. I understand it is
a fair topic to be debated on the floor of the House. I understand, Mr.
Chairman, that the other side would be defensive about this issue in
that their abuses of the earmark process, and their bulldozing to
passage of these earmarks resulted in so much excoriation by the press,
and a lost election and the incarceration of their Members.

{time} 1330

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a time and a place for debate on these
issues, and this bill is not the time or the place. This is the
Homeland Security appropriation, Mr. Chairman. This is the last bill
that ought to be politicized.
Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lost over 100 people on
September 11. Over 100 people. I went to more funerals than I thought
was possible. My district is about 40 miles from where the Twin Towers
used to stand. When my constituents go to New York City these days,
they can't see the Twin Towers because we had no homeland security in
2001. When they go to New York City, it is without the people that they
loved and knew. All they have left are the memories.
Mr. Chairman, what I believe is happening today is that the Members
from the other side are dishonoring those memories and, in fact,
compromising our homeland security by using this critical bill to keep
us safe and sound and strong to score political points on and to delay
on.
That is simply not acceptable. They are putting politics, Mr.
Chairman, ahead of our homeland security. They are putting politics,
Mr. Chairman, ahead of our national security. They are putting
politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of the memory of those who lost their
lives on 9/11.
Now, I was in Pakistan just some time ago with the Appropriations
Committee. I stood on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and
learned that the Taliban is getting stronger, al Qaeda is resurging,
Ansar al Islam is getting stronger and Jamah Islamayah is getting
better. What is the other side doing over the past 48 hours? Spending 8
hours debating cuts to the General Counsel's Office in the Department
of Homeland Security.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning, plotting, and strategizing our
demise; and the other side, Mr. Chairman, is spending 8 hours debating
a cut in the costs of the General Counsel's Office in the Department of
Homeland Security.
Mr. Chairman, forgive me if I sound frustrated. But I don't know how
I can go back to my district in New York and explain to my constituents
who attended funerals that instead of figuring out how to strengthen
our borders, we spent 8 hours debating the General Counsel's Office in
the Department of Homeland Security; that while our enemies are
planning to destroy us, the other side offered eight separate motions
to rise yesterday; that while our enemies are figuring out how to plan
our demise, the other side is figuring out how to delay the response.
How can I possibly explain that to the families that I represent?
I don't begrudge the other side their right to debate earmarks. But
not on this bill. This is the wrong bill. It is at the wrong time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to return all of us to that very dark day. Many
of the gentlemen and the gentlewomen who are spending all of this time
consumed in a debate over earmarks in a bill that has no earmarks, who
are consumed on procedural motions, held hands on 9/11 that night on
the steps of this building and pledged never again. We would never let
this happen again. We will do what must be done. We will bear any
burden and pay any price in the defense of liberty and freedom.
What has happened in the years since then? We are not willing to pay
the price. We are not willing to bear the burden. The only burden is
that we are going to be here through the weekend debating more motions
to rise, more amendments that are nothing but, in my view, political
cheap shots.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the time and the place. We need to pass
this bill to strengthen America, not compromise America's security.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to bring a little bit of

[[Page H6361]]

openness to this debate and this process. Those of us on the minority
side are not concerned about the overall scope of the Homeland Security
bill.
Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, I think, have done an
outstanding job on the substance of the bill. But we are very concerned
about the lack of openness and transparency on what are called
``earmarks,'' because the majority party campaigned specifically for
openness and transparency on this particular issue, and this is the
first appropriation bill, and there is no openness and transparency on
earmarks.
So I am going to start a precedent at least for the Sixth
Congressional District, which is the district that I represent. I am
going to put my earmarks in the Record on this bill. I have two of
them.
The first one is for the City of Arlington, Texas. It is a request
for $10 million to replace all of the radio equipment and communication
equipment for the City of Arlington Police Department so they meet the
new Project 25 interoperability requirement. So that is my first
earmark. The second earmark is also for the City of Arlington, Texas.
It is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.
Now, my very first congressional earmark, way back in 1985, or maybe
1986, was to set up the first anti-drug Narcotics Task Force in Tarrant
County.
I went to Jamie Whiten, who was the powerful chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. I went to that corner office right off the
floor and on trembling knees asked Mr. Whiten for $1 million to have
the first anti-drug task force in Tarrant County, Texas, with the main
city being Fort Worth in Arlington, Texas, and, lo and behold, I got
it. So this request for $2 million is in a sense a continuation, an
expansion. That task force has obviously expanded since the mid-1980s,
but this is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.
I have also signed a delegation letter. I won't list every Member who
signed it, but in Congressman Edwards' district down in College
Station, Texas, Texas A&M is the home of a National Emergency Response
and Rescue Training Center. I have asked, along with a number of other
Members, for an additional $13 million for that national center.
Those are all my earmark requests. Under the new rules, I have to
sign a letter, like every other Member, to Mr. Price and to Mr. Rogers
stating what my earmark request is, and then I certify that neither
myself nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.
So I want to put these earmark requests in the record so that at
least one Member of Congress is being open and transparent in the
process.
I want to say something about the process. There is absolutely
nothing wrong with trying to make earmark requests open. But it is
disingenuous, to say the least, to campaign on openness and
transparency and then not deliver. I happen to think Chairman Obey is
doing an outstanding job. It is a tough job being chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. Just ask former Chairman Lewis. But to have
one Member of Congress responsible for vetting every earmark request,
and apparently this year the number is 32,000, which is an average of
about 80 per Member, which is an average of about 7 per appropriations
bill, that is an impossible task.
Let's come up with some system to put the earmarks in the bills as
they come to the floor. Let there be a debate. Some would fall out,
some would shift around, but the American people would know what the
process is all about.
Mr. Chairman, I include my earmark requests for the Record.

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.
Hon. David Price,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House
Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: I am
requesting funding for the Interoperable Law Enforcement
Communications System in fiscal year 2008. The entity to
receive funding for this project is the City of Arlington,
located at 101 W. Abram Street, P.O. Box 90231, MS 01-0310,
Arlington, TX 76004.
The funding would be used for replacing the Arlington
Police Department's local radio system with new equipment
which will allow Arlington Police officers to communicate
with other agencies.
I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial
interest in this project.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Member of Congress.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.
Hon. David Price,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House Committee
on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House
Appropriations Committee, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: I am
requesting funding for the Narcotics Task Force in fiscal
year 2008. The entity to receive funding for this project is
the City of Arlington, located at 101 W. Abram Street, P.O.
Box 90231, MS 01-0310, Arlington, TX 76004.
The funding would be used to allow the Arlington Police
Department to coordinate with HIDTA, the DEA, and regional
task forces to conduct focused interdiction initiatives
combating drug trafficking in Arlington and the surrounding
area.
I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial
interest in this project.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Member of Congress.
____

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2007.
Hon. David Price,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
House Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Hon. Harold Rogers,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, House
Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers: The purpose
of this letter is to request funding for the following
projects in the FY'08 Homeland Security Appropriations bill
under the consideration of your Subcommittee. I have listed
the projects in order of greatest priority.
First priority: City of Arlington. Texas: Interoperable Law
Enforcement Communications System $10.0M
Any federal funding received will be used for an
Interoperable Law Enforcement Communications System. The
proposed project would provide the basis for a regional
communications system through the acquisition of state-of-
the-art technology that adheres to recently drafted federal
specifications for interoperability, Project 25. The Project
25 standard allows agencies to purchase communications
equipment from any manufacturer and be assured that it is
designed to achieve interoperability with other Project 25
compliant systems. It is expected that this amount of funding
will be required to completely replace Arlington's
communications system with technology that can serve as the
backbone for a regional Project 25 compliant system.
Police and other public safety employees rely on an array
of wireless voice communications (mobile radios, portable
radios, base-stations, cell phones and pagers) to conduct
day-to-day activities as well as respond to major
emergencies, catastrophic events and disasters, both natural
and man-made. Traditionally, most law enforcement agencies
and jurisdictions have chosen to finance, install and
maintain their own communications systems. As a result, the
systems are purchased from different suppliers/manufacturers,
operate on different radio frequencies and utilize a broad
range of underlying technologies and architectures. The
result has been inoperability (or inability to communicate)
between jurisdictions.
Problems caused by lack of interoperability are
particularly acute during large scale events that necessitate
the involvement of personnel from multiple agencies and
jurisdictions. This is commonly referred to as ``mutual aid''
in the public safety profession. Mutual aid events can come
about due to unplanned events such as large-scale accidents,
natural disaster, civil insurrection/riot, or major crime
event or terrorist attack. Mutual aid situations can also be
the result of major sporting events, political conventions or
large scale celebrations. Regardless of its source,
interoperability is critical to an effective response to
large scale events and mutual aid situations.
Second priority: City of Arlington, Texas: Narcotics Task
Force $2.0M
Any federal funding received will be used to fund a
comprehensive, cooperative interdiction program in Arlington,
Texas. Funds would be utilized for personal protection
equipment for officers who find clandestine labs,
surveillance equipment, drug dogs, specialized K-9 vehicles
and related equipment, personnel, training, and other related
services.
Narcotic trafficking is a multi-jurisdictional problem
requiring a task force approach to ensure coordination among
numerous law enforcement agencies. The Tarrant

[[Page H6362]]

County Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit (TCNICU) was
formed in 1988 to work these complex narcotics cases. Due to
a new requirement that federally-funded narcotics task forces
be multi-county as well as multi-agency, the TCNICU expanded
to include Ellis County during 2003. Its name was changed to
Metro Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit (MNICU), and
the Department of Public Safety (DPS) now has operational
control/oversight of the task force.
This task force is supported through Byrne Funds, funneled
through the Governor's Office (Criminal Justice Division).
These funds were depleted in March 2006 and no other funding
sources have been identified. The City's current agreements
with HIDTA and DEA cover only overtime expenses.
Major drug trafficking routes run from Mexico through the
Metroplex to other states. The HIDTA Interdiction programs
instituted along Interstate 35 have been very successful.
Interstate 20, Interstate 30 and State Highway 360 are major
thoroughfares in the heart of the Sixth District for drug
traffickers transporting their wares to Dallas and Fort Worth
and beyond. Additional funding is requested to create a
comprehensive program.
Thank you for your kind consideration of these projects. If
you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to
contact me or my Legislative Assistant, Aarti Shah
Sincerely,
Joe Barton,
Member of Congress.
____

March 16, 2007.
Hon. David Price,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our strong
support for a $13 million increase over last year's funding
in the FY 2008 Homeland Security Appropriation Bill for the
National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center
(NERRTC), a lead member of the National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium (NDPC). NERRTC, established in 1998, is a member
of The Texas A&M University System, and is located in College
Station, Texas.
The other non-federal members of the NDPC include the
Counter Terrorism Operations Support (CTOS) at the Nevada
Test Site (NTS); Energetic Materials Research and Training
Center (EMRTC) at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology; and National Center for Biomedical Research and
Training (NCBRT) at Louisiana State University (LSU). The
Consortium coordinates and integrates their training efforts
to ensure the optimal use of federal funds appropriated for
the purpose of providing a focused, threat responsive, long-
term national capability for our emergency responders.
The FY 2007 Appropriations Bill provided $22 million for
NERRTC, as part of the $88 million allocation for the four
non-federal members of the NDPC. Unfortunately, the
President's FY 2008 budget proposes a significant decrease in
funding levels for the Consortium, reducing the total
allocation for the NDPC to $38 million, to be awarded on a
competitive basis. The states would be required to incur
training costs to purchase required training that has
historically been fully-funded by the Office of Grants and
Training (G&T) through the Consortium. The states have
received no impetus to purchase the specialized training,
which only the Consortium provides.
Under this new training direction for the G&T,
responsibility for all three levels of WMD/terrorism training
(awareness, performance, and planning/management) will shift
from DHS to local jurisdictions. This shift would result in
the loss of uniform training standards and the certified
training programs that have been developed. Additionally,
given the proposed changes in FY 2008 funding for the State
Formula Grant Program, the new training strategy could impact
the states' ability to meet needed training requirements.
We strongly believe that the current training strategy,
which has been successfully implemented by G&T through the
Consortium for the past nine years, continues to be an
effective tool for our nation. To date, NERRTC has trained in
every State and U.S. Territory, reaching more than 7,400
jurisdictions and over 204,000 participants. The entire
Consortium has trained over 700,000 emergency responders
through a nationally validated curriculum. This model has
reached all disciplines necessary for national preparedness,
including fire, law enforcement, EMS, hazardous materials,
public works, public health, emergency managers and senior
officials. The model is effective and provides for
consistency in standards and curriculum.
The national demand for NERRTC specialized training
programs, as well as the specialized training programs
provided by the other members of the Consortium, continues to
grow at a rapid pace. For FY 2008, $35 million is requested
to increase current support to G&T and program delivery, to
meet the documented national needs and requests from states,
to expand training deliveries to our local and state
emergency responders.
We appreciate your consideration of this critical national
project and its significant contributions to enhancing our
homeland security.
Sincerely,
______

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to Mr. McHenry any time that
I have remaining.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas.
Mr. Chairman, the important part here is that we say very clearly to
the American people that we should know where the dollars and cents
that our Federal taxpayers are funding for their government is going.
That includes the important programs of this government. But it very
much is important to the American people to give scrutiny to these
pork-barrel projects and earmarks contained within these billion-dollar
bills. The bill before us today is $36 billion in spending. I think it
is worthy and worthwhile that we spend a little time giving this
legislation scrutiny.
Mr. KLINE of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating debate. I have heard,
unfortunately, some language that I certainly find offensive, that we
are dishonoring, for example, those who have died in this country. I
certainly don't believe that is the case. I don't understand how our
insistence on making sure that we are appropriating the taxpayers'
dollars responsibly dishonors anyone.
Repeatedly I have heard that in this bill there are no earmarks.
Again, I would reiterate, that is the point. We simply don't know if
that is the case. The gentleman from Texas just stood down here and
said he has requests for two earmarks in this bill. I don't know how
many earmarks will end up at the end of the process, and, frankly, none
of us do, because there is no transparency and we do not have
visibility into this very, very flawed system for Members' projects for
earmarks.
Mr. Chairman, I know that my dear friend and colleague from North
Carolina would like the opportunity to talk about his amendment and
this process once again, so I would be happy to yield the remainder of
my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.
Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have a serious discussion here on
the floor today, as we did yesterday. There have been some accusations
about what we did when we were in the majority. But, look, let's face
it, there is a new majority. There is a new regime in town. They called
for a new direction. I guess there is a new direction. Congress'
approval ratings are the lowest they have been in decades.
Nothing has been achieved in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats'
agenda, the Six for 06, the vaunted Six for 06 agenda, has been Zero in
06. Zero of these bills have been enacted into law.
So it is wonderful for the Democrats to point at the Republicans.
But, let's face it, the Democrats are in the majority, and it is their
obligation to govern, and they have not yet done it.
They spent 133 days in power, the new Democrat majority, and what
have they done? Well, they had a lot of debate about whether or not to
defund the troops who are in harm's way. They played politics with the
troops. But yet they didn't take any time at all to review the earmarks
in this bill. They have had 133 days. The chairman of the
Appropriations Committee has had 133 days to review these earmarks, but
yet he will not open it up to public scrutiny.
All we are asking for these earmarks and for this Democrat excessive
spending is for it to see the light of day so the American people can
see what their money is going towards. So while they play politics with
funding the troops, they do nothing when it comes to pork-barrel
spending. They do nothing when it comes to earmarks. They do nothing to
control spending. They do nothing to enact their vaunted Six for 06
agenda.
Mr. Chairman, I think the American people need to understand what
this new Democrat majority, this new direction, is all about. It is
about politics. It is about politics. And what we are talking about
here today, what Republicans and conservatives are saying is that we
need to have those earmarks laid out for public scrutiny so the press
and Members of this body can actually see what the chairman wants to
insert at the 11th hour in this legislation. We want to see what is in
that slush fund within this bill. We want to see where our tax dollars
are going. But we also want to spend. Beyond that, we want to make sure
this money is appropriated wisely.

[[Page H6363]]

What the ranking member on this subcommittee has said is there is too
much spending. We have got too many bureaucrats being thrown into the
Department of Homeland Security. This money is not being spent wisely.
It is not being spent in the right ways. We are not funding defense
like we should. We are not funding border security like we should. We
are not funding intelligence capabilities like we should. Yet there is
a large increase in spending in this appropriations bill. Where is it
going? Where is it going?

{time} 1345

And where is that money, that slush fund, going? I think the American
people, not just my colleagues in the House, not just the committee
chairmen, not just a committee, but all the American people deserve to
see where their money is going. That's the right thing.
That's what we're debating about here today and what we were debating
about last night. And while the Democrats forced us to go into 2:00
a.m. voting on this House floor, in the middle of the night, voting on
important matters of public policy, the Speaker sleeps. While we were
forced to stay here until 2:00 a.m., voting on procedural motions to
hold the Democrats accountable, the Speaker slept.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate my good friend from North Carolina. We've been out here
a bunch together. First, he says, well, this is politics. This is not
politics. This is governing, something you on the other side know very,
very little about.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should address his remarks
to the Chair.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is correct.
The Chair would ask the gentleman from Ohio to address his remarks to
the Chair.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side were
saying that this is about politics, and I would like to say that this
is not about politics. This is about governing, Mr. Chairman, something
the Republicans in Congress know very, very little about.
Now, we have heard lectures today about spending too much money. $4
trillion under the Republican watch, Mr. Chairman, borrowed from China,
Japan and OPEC countries with a Republican House, a Republican Senate,
a Republican President. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Republicans will spare
us the lectures on fiscal responsibility.
And then, Mr. Chairman, they start saying that, well, you're spending
it, but you're not spending it right. You can spare us the lectures on
spending. Need we bring up Katrina, need we bring up Iraq, Mr.
Chairman? We don't really need lectures from the most blatantly
irresponsible spending Congress in the history of this illustrious
body.
Now, the Homeland Security Department was created by the Republican
Party, Mr. Chairman. They ran on it. They ran campaigns against Max
Cleland on it. They created it. And so now they're saying that if we
actually fund it to protect the country, that somehow we're doing
something wrong. That's what you do with programs that work; you fund
them.
And now more to the point of what I think the real substance of this
argument is really all about: The National Intelligence Estimate said
that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists around the globe. That
means, Mr. Chairman, that there are more terrorists out there now than
there were before, and they're all coming to get us here in the United
States. President Bush even says all the time, You know, if we don't
fight 'em over there, they're going to come over here and get us.
So what we're trying to do in this bill is to protect the homeland.
We're trying to protect against all those terrorists that have been
created in the last 5 years, that have joined al Qaeda and all of these
other groups that now want to come over here. We're trying to actually
protect the homeland.
So we want to secure the ports. We want to make sure we have the
first responders. You're impeding progress with the shenanigans that
have been going on here the last 24 hours.
Mr. McHENRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will not yield.
The problem with this is that God forbid something does happen in
this country. Every minute that we waste here is 1 more minute that the
terrorists get to attack this country without the proper port security,
without the proper border security.
So as you delay and you move to rise and you move to adjourn--
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the
Chair.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, as the Republicans move to rise, as
they move to adjourn, as they try to filibuster, that is just buying
time for these programs not to get implemented. And God forbid the
American people, after another attack, come to us and say, what were
you doing? Why didn't you have the technology on the ports? The
Republicans are going to have to go back home to their district and
say, we were filibustering this bill.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will not yield. You guys have had the floor for
24 hours. You could let us say a few words.
The bottom line is this: The new Democratic Congress has fulfilled
the promises that we have made, Mr. Chairman. Passed the minimum wage,
cut student loan interest rates in half, security issues. When you look
at the budgets that we have passed, the largest increase in veterans
spending in the history of the VA to take care of those soldiers who
are out there, a $500 to $600 increase in the Pell Grant, fully funding
Head Start, SCHIP, Even Start, after-school programs, investment in
alternative energy sources.
If I was you, I wouldn't want our bills to pass either, because when
these pass and we take it to the American people, Mr. Chairman, our
friends on the other side are going to wish they would have had the
level of competence that the Democrats have.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I come to the floor because of the inspiration of the ranking member
of my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who came and
disclosed for the body the earmarks that he had in the bill. I would
like to take this opportunity to disclose the earmarks that I have in
the homeland security bill as reported to me by my staff. The number is
zero.
But, still, the argument that goes on here today is important. We
just heard a scholarly discussion about the budget that was passed by
the new majority. The reality is, a lot of those fully funding issues
are in what are called ``reserve funds.'' The gentleman mentioned
specifically SCHIP. We have been working on that in my committee for
months now. I will tell you, the funds are not there. The reserve funds
are sort of like sending a get-well card to a Federal program that is
going to expire on September 30 of this year because we have not yet
done the work to extend it.
Mr. Chairman, I also feel obligated to point out that certainly there
are many times during the last 4 years that I have been here, again as
just a simple country doctor who came to Congress, but there have been
many times that I have been here that I have felt that our side was
spending too much money. However many times I felt that way, I cannot
escape the feeling that now we are fixing to spend that and a great
deal more, and that does sadden me.
I think, more to the point, the bill that is under discussion today
is a bill that is extremely important to this country, and I think it
is a shame that a new majority that campaigned on the concept of
openness and being transparent about the process now has decided that
there is value in opacity and intends to obscure the process as much as
they possibly can.
It is one thing to decide that that is the correct way to govern, but
don't campaign on that issue. Don't promise what you can't deliver. If
you cannot be open about your method of governing, then please don't
run on that as an issue in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield as much time as I have
remaining to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. I appreciate my colleague from Texas for yielding.
I want to respond to my colleague and friend from Ohio. He does a
wonderful job at oratory. His facts are a

[[Page H6364]]

little off, Mr. Chairman, I must say. He forgot in his list of these
wonderful things the Democrat Congress has done, because, let's face
it, it is a nice long list of things that they have said that they
would do. Actually, they haven't implemented many of the things that he
claims, Mr. Chairman. The one thing on his list he forgets, though, is
the largest tax increase in American history. I don't know why he
doesn't brag about that.
But he actually points out something that is very important to
realize. The Democrats have done part of what they've said. They
campaigned on increasing the size and scope of government, Mr.
Chairman, and they've done that. They're working to do that.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHENRY. In just a second. In just a moment.
Mr. BURGESS. The gentleman from Texas controls the time and, no, he
will not yield.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?
Mr. BURGESS. No, I will not.
Mr. McHENRY. Let me just say this. The largest tax increase in
American history, that is really the backdrop of these spending bills.
The gentleman points out an interesting quandary, I must say. He says
that Republicans are delaying the implementation of homeland security
funding. The Department is funded through October 1. Beyond that, if it
were important for us to put our priorities first, we would start, Mr.
Chairman, with the Department of Defense, for national defense
purposes. Instead, he's pulling a political game on us, Mr. Chairman,
to simply say that we are harming national security because we're
trying to restrain pork-barrel spending within this appropriation.
He actually points out a very important thing the American people
need to understand. If the Democrats wanted to focus on priorities, we
would have started with homeland security and national defense on day
one. Instead, the new Democrat majority played politics with our troops
in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. They played politics with that
funding, Mr. Chairman. They played politics for 100 days. And they're
continuing to play politics with the funding for our troops in harm's
way, Mr. Chairman. And we should oppose that.
And the American people are reacting to that. They don't want to
defund our troops in harm's way. They don't want to do that.
I would ask my colleague from Texas, to, if he would, yield for 15
seconds to the gentleman from Ohio for his comment or question, because
that is much more generous than he did earlier. And I would love to
respond to what he says or claims.
Mr. BURGESS. In fact, I will be happy to yield, but let me just
reclaim my time for a moment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burgess was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. BURGESS. I have no earmark in this bill, but had I had an earmark
in this bill, I would have had to submit that the middle of March, 3
months ago.
As the gentleman from North Carolina so correctly points out, this is
not new information. This information has been percolating somewhere
within the committee for the last 3 months' time.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. The reason
the gentleman from Texas doesn't have an earmark in this bill is
because there are no earmarks in this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Reclaiming my time, the ranking member of my committee
came to the floor and said he had two earmarks in the bill. So I submit
to you that there are earmarks in the bill, and we should be discussing
that; that should be part of the new open and transparent Congress.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield
to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to clarify. The ranking member submitted
earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill. That's a clear difference.
I ask my friend from North Carolina, what do you want to cut out of
this bill? The Border Patrol? The 3,000 Border Patrol agents? Do you
want to get rid of the technology that we're going to have on the ports
to scan cargo coming in? Is that what you want to cut? Do you want to
cut the money that we're giving to our first responders?
Mr. Chairman, exactly what is it that you don't like about this bill?
There are no earmarks and we're funding programs that are going to
protect the homeland.
Now, we understand clearly, Mr. Chairman, that our friends on the
other side have had a difficult time governing the country. That
doesn't mean they have to impede us from doing it.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill
addresses not only the threat of terrorist activity, but funding for
States and communities to confront the threat and real consequences of
natural disasters and emergency situations.
Hurricane Katrina was one disaster. The response of the Federal
Government to Katrina was another disaster. While the world watched,
our citizens were left to fend for themselves. I live in a city that
sits at the epicenter of the New Madrid fault zone. Historically, this
area has been the site of some of the largest earthquakes in North
America. Scientists believe we could be overdue for a large earthquake
and through research and public awareness may be able to prevent
terrible losses of life and property.
Also, Memphis is built on the banks of the Mississippi, and as every
river town knows, we must be vigilant to ensure that the river remains
our friend. And Tennessee is one of the States most frequently hit with
tornadoes and destructive straight-line winds.
I am pleased to support the Homeland Security Appropriations bill
because it provides for the needs of our citizens to ensure that their
government will be vigilant in protecting them not only from
terrorists, imagined and real, but by preparing for emergencies and
being there in the aftermath of disasters. We don't need to just say,
there's been a ``heckuva job'' done, but we need to make sure that the
job is done.
Mr. Chairman, we were here until 2 o'clock this morning because of
dilatory moves on the other side. We need to come together and pass a
homeland security bill that protects our cities and our States from
natural disasters and protects our country from terrorists, imagined
and real. This is a bill we need to pass for America and make America
proud of this United States Congress.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, part of our process in this country as a Republic and
one reason we broke away from a monarchy was because of the fact that
Americans, by nature, want things in the public view.

{time} 1400

Back in the days of the king, the king made all of the decisions and
he made them based on any reason or lack of reason the king wished.
Americans want their government to be public. That's why this House
meets in public instead of in a back room someplace, because when you
meet in back rooms, things seem to happen that are not in the favor or
the benefit of the public or the American people.
And in this whole appropriations process, the American public is
watching us and we are being asked to appropriate billions of dollars
for different projects, appropriations bills; but yet we don't know
where the money is going. Now, most Americans probably would find that
difficult to understand. I find that difficult to understand. Why you
would ever appropriate taxpayer money, set it out here in some fund,
you can call it a slush fund or a sludge fund it makes no difference.
We don't know where the money is going. We are being told trust us, we
are the government; we will decide later how to spend your money. Trust
us.
And how is that decision going to be made? It is going to be made
really by one person and his staff, a good person no doubt, but will
that decision be made upon partisan politics, how these false, fake,
secret earmarks are going to be determined? Will it be based upon
longevity in the House? Will it be based upon where a person happens to
live in the United States? Will it be based upon other factors that are
subjective as opposed to objective? Who knows.

[[Page H6365]]

We don't know because we don't know, first of all, where the money is
going and how those decisions will be made.
But we are all asked in this House, including those on the other
side, to write a letter and ask for one earmark, and then that letter
will be reviewed by the staff. And the staff will meet with the one
Member of Congress and the decision will be made whether to grant or
not grant that earmark.
It seems to me that one person should not have that ability, that
authority, that power. It goes back to the phrase from Orwell's
``Animal Farm'' that all animals are equal, but some animals are more
equal than others. And this is probably one of those examples.
So why not be open about it? Why not be democratic about it and air
those public earmarks in the public sector. Let's argue and debate them
on the House floor. Let's vote them up, let's vote them down, but let
the American people see exactly what those earmarks are and then they
can see where we stand and see how we vote as 435 as opposed to one
person.
So deals made in back rooms are not good deals for the American
public. All we are asking in this legislative body is that we take the
taxpayers' money and we tell them up front where that money is going to
be spent before we take it away from the taxpayers and say trust us, we
are from the Federal Government, we are here to help you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to Judge Carter.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This has been a stimulating debate, and I want to thank my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle for joining in this debate. Yesterday
evening we were accused of delaying and taking up all of the time, and
I think we have equally shared the time this morning, and I am very
proud to have the help of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle
in continuing this debate because I think it is important that we hear
from all sides. In fact, that is what this is all about.
We keep talking about us, but I think that the Democratic
Representatives on the other side of the aisle individually have the
same right to see and debate these earmarks as the people on the
Republican side of the aisle. I am not arguing this point only for
Republicans. I believe that the individual Members who are elected by
the people in their district to make sure they are on top of spending
have the same right.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it is amazing because a lot of us sat here last night
until 2 in the morning and watched the Republican minority file motion
after motion for us to rise so we wouldn't take up a Homeland Security
bill that has no earmarks.
What they did was slow us down on trying to have a bill passed by
October 1, which they have had trouble when they were 12 years in the
majority. That is why we had to live under continuing resolutions, and
continue to live under one because of their governance last year.
The Homeland Security bill has 300 new Border Patrol agents. It would
be nice on October 1 if this bill was signed into law so we would have
those Border Patrol agents on the border, in our airports and in our
ports.
They are delaying the planning for the first responders, whether in
the city of Houston where I come from, or the State of Texas where my
three colleagues who spoke earlier on how bad earmarks were, or the
bill provides protection from explosive systems for our airports,
including Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.
This is delaying $400 million for port security, including the Port
of Houston, the number one foreign-tonnage port. We are doing some
great things in the Port of Houston. It is because we put the community
together, the business community and all government agencies,
Republican and Democrats. I wish we could see that in Washington. But
we didn't see that last night. We saw delay after delay in not taking
up this bill. So we are putting it off so they can make a point of how
bad earmarks are.
But the House Republicans don't want to talk about those issues. They
want to talk about how they want to bring the light of day into
earmarks. Well, for 12 years they didn't want the light of day in
earmarks. They were the king. They were the emperor of earmarks. I have
watched for many years what happened over those 12 years with the
earmarks and the ones that were shut out in the minority.
I think what they are concerned about is that we may do to them what
they did to the Democrats for 12 years, but that is not our intent. All
we want is to be able to see them, the public.
I have requested earmarks, and I am proud to say I have received them
for our district. I don't mind publicizing them. In fact, I will do it
in any manner required, instead of airdropping them in like they
previously did in the appropriations bills.
I think that conversion we saw, maybe it started with the November
election, but we are seeing it now, that conversion is almost as
amazing as Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, from Saul being a
persecutor of Christians to becoming Paul, the Lord works in mysterious
ways; but I don't think it is so mysterious. I think what we are seeing
is after 12 years of being dictators in this House, now they are afraid
the same rules are going to be used against them.
For 3 years, I have requested $250,000 in an earmark for a prenatal
machine to treat mothers, poor mothers, to be able to get a new piece
of equipment so we can do prenatal planning. $250,000. Health and Human
Services has stripped out Democratic earmarks for a number of years. I
don't intend to do that. I am not an appropriator, but I hope our
Appropriations Committee doesn't do that. I am not ashamed to say that
I asked for that earmark again this year for that prenatal machine.
Or for $250,000 for a diabetes program in Harris County to help what
our local community is doing. I have asked for $250,000 for
immunizations. The reason we have earmarks is that I don't want to
appropriate all that money and send to Health and Human Services, and
say, by the way, I sure would like you to help diabetes and
immunizations in Harris County in Houston, Texas. Or maybe help pay for
part of a machine for prenatal care.
Mr. Chairman, do I still control the time on the floor of the House?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has the time.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. It is my understanding that Members cannot
rise while other Members have the floor of the House.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. A Member may seek to be yielded to. The
gentleman from Texas may continue.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we all have to obey the rules,
whether Republican or Democrat; and that is what we are trying to say.
We want to pass the appropriations bills before October 1. In the
majority for 12 years, they couldn't do it. They put in earmarks all
over the appropriations process, and yet stripped out Democrats. I
don't want us to do that, but I do want us to have some legislative
ability to say we have projects in our district that are important. If
I am willing to say, yes, I want them and I will publicize them, then
why shouldn't we be able to have an elected official make that decision
instead of the bureaucracy that may still be under the President. But
the now Republican minority put earmarks in even when they were in the
majority, so that is what this debate is about.
They don't want us to pass these bills but we need to do it for the
American people, particularly Homeland Security.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman, and I think
he had some good points to make, but I do just want to point out that
under the Republicans, the Democrat minority was allowed to determine
which of their projects got funded. If Democrat projects were stripped
out, it wasn't done by the Republicans; it was done by the Democrats on
the leadership in the Appropriations Committee. I think this is
important to understand. We didn't interfere with what Democrat
priorities were, as I understand it. You got a certain percentage and
were able to determine your own priorities.
I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, I think he may be
blaming us for something that we didn't do.
Now, I am not here to lead a crusade against earmarks. The
Constitution

[[Page H6366]]

clearly specifies that the legislative branch is in control of spending
for the government. We are entitled to set our priorities, and we would
not be doing our jobs as Representatives if we did not indeed set those
priorities.
I do want to note with some of the things that have been said, in the
final year of Republican control of the United States Congress, we cut
nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in 19 years. The
hardest thing we ever have done in Congress, you or we have done, is to
cut spending. It is very, very difficult.
Having said that, last year we actually accomplished it, and nobody
knew it so I am going to say it here again today: the first time in 19
years, through the leadership of Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations
Committee, we cut nondefense discretionary spending, the first time in
19 years.
We did not cut mandatory spending, but we worked hard to slow the
growth curve, and we did that. Mandatory spending, by the way, is where
two-thirds of all spending actually occurs. And for the first time in 9
years, we slowed the growth of mandatory spending. Those are two huge
accomplishments. I hope that the Democrat majority in the time they
have will be able to show a similar accomplishment. I am not encouraged
so far by what I see. I think with all of their rhetoric about openness
and transparency and curbing earmarks, it bodes very ill, despite that
rhetoric, in trying to tar and feather the Republicans with these
slanderous statements that they have, indeed, overturned their own
process and they are going to airdrop in the earmarks in the conference
committee.
Yes, it has been asserted there are no earmarks in this Homeland
Security bill. That is right, but there will be, and they will be in
this bill in the conference report where all we can do is vote ``yes''
or ``no,'' no chance to amend or affect the process. That goes
completely against what the majority party asserted would be their
policy. And we have to keep calling attention to this to have the world
understand what is going on here. This is fundamental to the
consideration of all the other appropriations bills. We have to get
this process established.
They ran their campaigns last November on the idea that the earmarks
are going to be open and accountable, and the first thing they did was
to go way back in time and do something where they are completely
shielded from public view until the last minute when they get dropped
in. That is wrong. We will not accept that, and we will not go easily
into that good night until and unless you reform that policy. It is
completely unacceptable to campaign about openness and transparency for
earmarks, and then to go in exactly the opposite direction, have no
openness and no transparency and no accountability.

{time} 1415

That is very, very wrong, and I hope that people will clearly see
that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I have to Mr. McHenry,
if he would care to offer any additional insights.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, to
reiterate my earlier point, which is, we need to lay clear these
earmarks. We need to know what they are in the legislation so that the
American people can judge for themselves the worthiness of the programs
and the money allocated for them.
Now, we just want a clear, open, transparent process which is what
the new majority, what the new Speaker campaigned upon.
Now, we had this long debate last night after 10 o'clock. We went on
for hours and hours and hours about this process until after 2 in the
morning. Now, I understand the Speaker went home to sleep and the rest
of us sat here and debated, but that's a whole other issue. If the
Speaker had been here, Mr. Chairman, they would know that this is an
important debate for the American people to hear.
Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to really focus on the substance
of this bill, and I rise today in strong support of this Homeland
Security bill.
I represent southern Arizona. My district, the 8th Congressional
District, shares 120 miles with the country of Mexico. We are facing a
security and immigration crisis in my district and across the Nation.
The flood of illegal immigrants and drug trafficking continues to place
an undue burden on not just our health care system but our schools, our
first responders and on our local law enforcement.
Currently, the Tucson sector is the most porous section along the
U.S.-Mexico border. On average, every day the Border Patrol apprehends
about 2,000 illegal immigrants and approximately 2,500 pounds of drugs.
While most illegal immigrants are coming here for economic
opportunities and don't want to do harm to anyone, probably about 10
percent are involved in criminal activities.
Nationally, the Border Patrol arrests 1 million illegal immigrants
annually and seizes over 1 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 do
the American people harm.
Border security must be strengthened, and all of the options for
accomplishing this must be on the table. Success requires a
multifaceted approach. We need to build fences, we need to deploy
sensors, we need to utilize the latest technologies, such as UAVs, and
take advantage of advanced technology in terms of detection.
I'm pleased that this legislation makes border security a priority
and provides the funding that we badly need along the U.S.-Mexico
border. The improved border security that this bill will fund is a
crucial component in passing comprehensive immigration reform that is
tough, practical and effective. I hope to work with my colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to pass legislation later that includes
components of border security, along with comprehensive immigration
reform.
Now, the bill that we are discussing today provides $8.8 billion for
the Customs and Border Protection agency, which is $50 million above
the President's request, and $647 million, nearly 8 percent, above
fiscal year 2007. It provides funding for 3,000 additional Border
Patrol agents, and this will bring the total number of Border Patrol
agents up to 17,819 by the end of fiscal year 2008.
This bill also funds the SBI, the Secure Border Initiative. This is
going to be rolling out in Sasabe in southern Arizona, and it funds
this initiative at the President's requested level of $1 billion. It
requires the Department of Homeland Security to justify how it plans to
use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders.
So I urge my colleagues to pass and I urge the President to sign this
very important legislation. Our border communities urgently need this
funding to stem violence and lawlessness and prevent terrorism that
could possibly impact the United States along the southern border.
I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this
legislation.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
This debate that began yesterday and continues today is really about
two things. One thing we've heard a lot about here recently in the last
few speeches that people have given is whether or not the majority
party wants to have earmark spending that is secret and that is not
subject to individual vote. We believe that such spending ought not to
be secret and ought to be subject to an individual vote. That's one
thing.
But there is another thing, and that is that this bill simply spends
too much. This bill has an increase in it, and I know the gentleman
from North Carolina and I had a discussion on this yesterday. Let's
just talk about the nonemergency spending.
This bill increases spending from year to year by 13.6 percent.
Again, that is a lot. It is a lot more than inflation, which has been
running under 3 percent. It is a lot more than most people see as an
increase in their salaries. Why, in fact, if someone out there
listening, Mr. Chairman, makes $15 an hour, if they were to get a
similar increase this year, they would make over $17 an hour next year.
I mean, most people out there making $15 an hour would love an increase
to $17 an hour, but they're probably not going to get a

[[Page H6367]]

$2 increase, but yet this bill proposes to expand the spending by 13.6
percent.
Now, people on the other side of the aisle, Democrats that
continually criticize our amendments and the things we're talking about
by saying that we are cutting spending, the two amendments before us
right now and the previous amendments we voted on last night and most
of the amendments, if not all, that we're going to see later, are not
cutting anything. They are slowing the growth. If you get $1 a month
and somebody gives you $2 a month, that's an increase; it's not a cut.
But they keep saying cut on the other side of the aisle so much that I
believe perhaps a little visual assistance is required.
So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this very, very clear. One
equals one. If you are getting $1 and you still get $1, that is not a
cut. That's the same amount of money that you had before. Two is
actually more than one. So that if you were getting $1 and now you get
$2, that also is not a cut, even if you wanted $3. Because what Members
on the Democratic side of the aisle continue to say is, oh, we're
getting one, we want three, you're only going to give us two and so,
therefore, it's a cut. No, it is not. One equals one, two is more than
one, regardless of what you want.
Mr. Rogers will propose an amendment later that has already been
described by the other side as a massive cut, except it will leave a 7
percent increase, I believe, roughly, in spending in this bill. A 7
percent increase from year to year is not a cut.
The amendment that is before us right now, Mr. McHenry's amendment,
proposes to spend less money than the bill before us on the Secretary's
bureaucratic operation, but it actually allows the Secretary's
bureaucrats to spend more than they spent last year. That, again, is
not a cut.
So, Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear here that Republicans are not
proposing to cut this bill. We are not proposing to cut spending in the
Department of Homeland Security. We are proposing to increase it at a
rate which is sustainable because if you continue to increase things at
13.6 percent a year, then that requires that everyone out there who's
making that $15 an hour get a raise to $17 and give it all to the
government in order to keep paying for this sort of increase. American
taxpayers cannot afford that kind of increase after increase after
increase.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I agree we should be debating substantively whether or
not we have reached perfection in the amount of resources we have put
to homeland security, and if Members on the other side think that no
additional funding for homeland security is necessary, no additional
border guards, no additional funding for immigration, that's their
right.
If they have so little confidence in Secretary Chertoff and the other
appointees of the Bush administration to decide what they need to
administer their responsibilities, that's their right. In the Senate,
they call it ``a vote of no confidence'' formally. Here the vote of no
confidence in Secretary Chertoff will be the constantly repeated
phrase, ``those bureaucrats,'' and apparently Members do not have any
confidence in the appointees of the Bush administration. That's their
right.
What they don't have a right to do, it seems to me, is to totally
forget history. Now, we are told, and I guess I should express my
admiration for so many Republicans who are fighting for the rights of
others. In our society, people fight for their own rights, but we
genuinely honor people who fight for the rights of others, people who
are not themselves victims, but fight to protect others who have been
victimized.
Well, a number of the Republicans are in that category. They are
fighting very hard for the right to vote against earmarks. What's
interesting is that many of the Republicans who over these past couple
of days have been fighting for the right to vote against earmarks
always vote for earmarks, and I don't just mean in overall bills.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) took the floor and
acknowledged that he had offered 39 amendments in the last Congress to
cut out earmarks and he lost 39 times. The overwhelming majority of
Republicans voted 39 times against the gentleman from Arizona. So we
have Republicans yesterday, and I will have the Record and we'll have
the rollcall, we will have people who said you must give me the right
to vote against these earmarks who then never voted against a single
earmark. And that is admirable.
It is admirable when you, yourself, have no intention of voting
against earmarks when, in fact, you are 39 for 39 in voting to keep
earmarks in the bill. And by the way, one might think the gentleman
from Arizona is irrational. I do not. I voted with him on a number of
occasions, not the majority, but I voted with him on some.
The gentleman from Arizona is a careful Member. He selected the most,
to him, outrageous earmarks, and we have Republicans who voted for all
39 outrageous earmarks, according to the gentleman from Arizona. The
great majority of the Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to reject
the earmarks that, of course, their appropriations colleagues had put
in the bill.
So, Mr. Chairman, is that not admirable, Members who got up here and
said, How dare you not let us vote against earmarks, when they
themselves had no intention of doing that? This is the vegetarians
rushing forward to defend the slaughter of beef cattle. This is
atheists insisting that people be given a religious day of worship.
This is a very, very impressive display of concern for the others.
These are people who themselves apparently intend to vote for every
earmark that comes down the pike. They never met an earmark they didn't
like, because if the gentleman from Arizona has done all of his careful
research, and he's presented 39 earmarks that he thinks are
particularly egregious and Members have voted against him on every one
and have voted to keep all 39 earmarks, they've never met an earmark
they didn't like.
So their insistence on delaying this bill and repeating arguments. I
must say I was here all night last night. I walked in and I don't
object to dilatory tactics. I object to excruciatingly boring dilatory
tactics. I must say, Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side are
the least imaginative filibusterers I've ever seen. They just repeat
themselves and repeat themselves, and stuff that was uninteresting and
flat in the first place does not improve with age.
But whatever their tactics, understand they are employing them on
behalf of the right of the others to vote against earmarks because it
is clear that the overwhelming majority of Republicans have no
intention of voting against earmarks, at least not based on the record.
They not only voted for bills with earmarks, the gentlewoman from North
Carolina acknowledged that earmarks had increased from 1,500 to 15,000
under Republicans, but then, of the 15,000 earmarks, when one of our
most diligent Members, the gentleman from Arizona, proposes to kill 39
of the earmarks, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against
him 39 times.
So, for that dedication to preserving a right that they themselves
have no interest in exercising, I give them credit, for very little
else, Mr. Chairman.

{time} 1430

Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the folks on our side, we certainly care about the
security of the United States, we care about the security of the
homeland, but we also care about how the tax dollars of American
families are spent.
The previous speaker talked about the right to vote on earmarks and
how some of those people are going to vote for these earmarks. But it's
not just about the right to vote on earmarks. It's about the right of
American families and American citizens to see what those earmarks are
that their elected officials may vote for or against.
I guess I look at this in this light, to paraphrase the line from the
movie, ``show me the earmarks.'' Show me the earmarks. Because when you
see the earmarks, then you are going to see where the money is going.
That's what the American people want to know. We have talked about the
term transparency a lot in this debate, because the reason it's so
important is the lack of transparency inevitably leads to more
spending.

[[Page H6368]]

That's just the way it works. We have got to know what's going on. If
we don't, more spending is going to occur. If you don't take my word
for it, look at the numbers. This bill increases spending 13.6 percent.
It's spending that always drives. Spending is the problem. We hear the
term, the old cliche with politicians, tax-and-spend politicians. It's
really the opposite. It's really the opposite. It's spend-and-tax
politicians. Spending drives the equation.
If you think about this, the spending contained in this bill, in the
budget we passed that was passed a few weeks back, that spending
inevitably will lead to higher taxes. Every single good tax cut that
has been put in place over the last 6 years, under the Democrat
spending plan, is going to go up, money that would be in the pockets of
families to spend on their kids, their goals, their dreams, things that
their kids care about, things that their family cares about, their
business to reinvest it there. All those things that they would like to
spend their money on, those taxes will go up, take money from the
hardworking family of this country and give it to government. That's
what we are talking about.
That's why we are talking about some of these issues. We want you to
show me the earmarks, show us what's there so we can see where
ultimately the spending will go and the American people, more
importantly, can ultimately see that.
I am reminded of a debate that I had back in my days of the State
House. There was a tax increase that was moving through our assembly, I
was opposed to it, and I remember a reporter coming up to me and saying
Jordan, you are so opposed to this tax increase, you think it's so bad
for families and taxpayers across the State of Ohio, he said. But
where's the outcry? Where are those families storming the State House
to talk about this huge tax increase that you are fighting against?
I said, you know, they're too busy working to pay those taxes to
storm the State House. That's the truth. We have got to remember the
families out there who have been working hard, making their businesses
succeed, making their families reach their goals and dreams they've
set. We have got to remember those as we go through this debate.
I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina who is,
I know, the sponsor of the second amendment.
Mr. McHENRY. I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. This is about
whether or not to restrain the growth of government. This is about
ensuring the integrity of taxpayer money in this process. It's about
ensuring that we know where our taxpayer dollars are going and that
there is public scrutiny to that, not just scrutiny from a narrow few
in this body.
But while the Speaker slept last night, we were working on the floor
to bring this issue to the American people. While the Speaker slept, we
made the case to the American people that this is an important debate
to restrain the growth of government, even within the Department of
Homeland Security's bureaucracy.
We want to make sure the taxpayer dollar is spent wisely,
efficiently, and effectively. This is a healthy debate, because we on
this side of the aisle want to restrain the growth of government while
those on the other side want to grow and grow and grow the government
in all the bureaucracy, especially here in Washington D.C.
It's very important. It's very important for us to engage in this
dialogue and debate, for the American people to have scrutiny over this
process and through this process. While the Speaker slept last night,
we worked till 2 in the morning, till past 2 in the morning, to make
sure the American people knew what this new majority, what this new
direction was all about.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his
work.
Mr. REYES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in deference to the comments of the last speaker, I
think the American people know what's going on here. They know that
almost 6 years after 9/11 and over 5 of those years during the time
that they controlled this Congress, they couldn't do what we have been
able to do with this funding for Homeland Security. They couldn't do
it, or they wouldn't do it.
But either way, Homeland Security funding is vitally important.
Why? It's important because it sends a strong, clear message to all
the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs
and Border Protection officers, that serve us, serve us well, valiantly
around the clock, that we think their work is important.
Last summer, in August, we had a series of hearings. I went to, I
think, five or six of those hearings where a number of my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle were present as well.
They talked about doing everything that was possible to secure our
country's borders. They talked about supporting the Customs and Border
Protection officers. They talked about providing them the tools and the
weapons and the technology, all the kinds of things that sounded really
good.
Yesterday and today, they're singing a different tune. They're
talking about stalling. Every minute that we talk about silly things,
we aren't talking about serious problems, that demand serious efforts,
serious problems that demand serious solutions.
At the very minimum, serious problems that demand serious debate. We
don't need Members citing ``Animal Farm,'' which, that's all well and
good to make a point, but the American people know that instead of an
animal farm, this is a body of a ship of fools here.
We don't need cute and silly things like one is one and two is more
than one, because it insults the very people that they profess to
support, the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. By
the way, every minute that we take doing these kinds of silly things
here, professing to want to debate seriously, we also take time away
from the largest increase ever for veterans funding, which is the next
bill that's waiting to be taken up here on the floor of the House.
Again, 5 years after 9/11, they couldn't do it, they wouldn't do it.
Now they've decided that they're not going to let us follow through on
the hollow promises that they had made for 5\1/2\ years after 9/11.
These are serious issues that we have an obligation seriously to
solve, an obligation that we owe, not just the American people, but the
employees of the Department of Homeland Security.
I spent 26\1/2\ years serving this Nation proudly on the border. I
know the integrity. I know the hard work. I know the dedication that
the employees of the Department of Homeland Security give each and
every day.
They are, or they should be, respected and are not being respected by
the kind of silly debate that has been going on here from Members of
the other side of the aisle. I think they deserve better, I think our
country deserves better, I think we all deserve better when we reflect
that this is the people's House. We deserve better than that kind of
silly debate.
I believe that it's important that we return to a process, the
regular order of continuing to debate this funding for a very important
agency 6 years after 9/11.
Let's get to the business that we were sent here to do. People put
their faith and trust in us. Let's not betray that faith and trust.
Let's do our job.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to make, essentially, two points. First,
my friends in the minority lack credibility on the issue they have
raised last night and today; and, second, this bill is far too
important to be stalled, delayed, put off by blatantly partisan
tactics.
On the first point, why does the minority party lack credibility on
this issue? Well, one of the two parties during the last 6 years took
the largest surpluses, I think we have had in history, and managed to
turn those surpluses into deficits, a multitrillion dollar turnaround
that was accomplished in a record short time. That party was the party
of my friends in the GOP. That's the same party today that is arguing
for fiscal responsibility.
One of the two parties presided over the greatest growth and
expansion and acceleration and abuse of the earmarking process in
history, brought that process to a point where it accounted for more
earmarks and more dollars than ever before. That party was also the
GOP.

[[Page H6369]]

One of the parties in this House presided over a period that resulted
in more indictments of Members, more investigations of Members, more
appearance of impropriety than any time since ABSCAM or Watergate. That
party was the Republican Party.
That same party that abused the earmark process, that had no earmark
transparency is now objecting to what? It is now objecting to an
earmark process that is better, that is more transparent than it has
ever been. That party is objecting to the work of the majority which
eliminated all earmarks in last year's bill.
So here you have a party that has demonstrated over the last 5 or 6
years utter fiscal irresponsibility, a lack of willingness to reform
the earmark process, now complaining that, okay, the Democrats are
reforming the process, they are making it more transparent, but we are
complaining because we think they should take it much farther.
Well, I think the last 6 years demonstrated a lack of credibility, a
serious lack of credibility among my friends in the minority party.
Why is this bill so important? Why is this bill essential to move
forward, and why are these partisan stalling tactics so questionable?
This is the bill that provides the resources to defend our country. I
am just going to focus on one because there are numerable areas of this
bill that are so vital. But if you go back 5 or 6 years ago when
President Bush and Senator Kerry had their debate, they were asked what
is the number one security threat facing this country. Their answer
surprisingly was the same, nuclear terrorism, the idea that al Qaeda
could get nuclear material and bring it into this country.
Well, there are only so many things that prevent al Qaeda from doing
that. It's not their lack of motivation or will. Osama bin Laden has
already talked about wanting an American Hiroshima. The obstacles are
getting the materiel, fashioning the bomb, and getting it into the
country. Getting the materiel, unfortunately, is not very difficult,
given the plentiful amounts of highly enriched uranium in the former
Soviet Union.
Building a bomb is not that difficult because the technology is now
decades old. Getting into the country, unfortunately, is not very
difficult. That's something this bill seeks to address by deploying
radiation-detector portal technologies; and more than just deploying
them, as essential as that is, doing the analysis to find out which of
the portal technologies will be most effective in keeping a nuclear or
radiological weapon out of the country. These are the kinds of
investments that are being delayed, stalled, run down by a party that
has run our Nation's finances into the ground in the last 6 years, that
is complaining about an earmark process better than anything they
proposed.
We need to move this bill forward. My friends in the minority don't
have the credibility on this issue. They may have had it at some point,
but they lost it in the last 6 years. This is not the way to retrieve
it.
We need to move this bill forward. Now is the time to do it. We need
to implement these reforms to improve our safeguards against nuclear
material getting into this country. We need to ensure that our cargo is
protected.
We need to ensure that any number of investments that are made in
interoperable communications equipment and our firefighters and our
police officers are made, and they are made now.
I urge this bill move forward. I urge the delay come to an end.

{time} 1445

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I want to talk about what my friend from California just mentioned.
And I want to just simply say that I think that the gentleman from
California is truly a gentleman, and I enjoy the time we've spent
together. But there are just a few things I think need to be corrected.
Number one, the gentleman mentioned that over the last 6 years, the
Republicans, when they were in charge, squandered the opportunity, lost
the credibility. Well, guess what? It's only taken 6 months for this
majority, maybe 6 years for the former majority; 6 months, and this
majority has turned their back on earmark reforms. Six months into the
new majority, and this majority has turned this thing upside down.
What do I mean when I say that, Mr. Chairman?
Let me just quote our current Speaker, on December 14, 2006, ``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.''
What happened?
Well, a number of things happened. Under the Republican majority,
earmarks got out of control. Under the Republican majority, waste
occurred. Let me be the first one to say that.
So what happened?
In the last session, Republicans changed the rules. We said, if
you're going to have an earmark, a pork-barrel project, Number one,
we've got to see it. It's got to be in the bill. A Member has to have
their name attached to it, so they have to defend it.
But most importantly, the American people need to see this, and it
needs to be in the bill as it comes to the House floor, as it goes to
the Senate Chamber, so that the American people have time to look at
it, so that transparency and sunlight can bring accountability to the
process, and so that we, as the people's Representatives, each and
every one of us, representing 670,459 people, can have judgment, can
vote on it. That's transparency. That's accountability. It happened
late in our majority, but it happened.
What did the Democrats do as they took over the majority?
To their credit, Mr. Chairman, they extended, enhanced and improved
upon these rules. So I would, at this moment, like to give some
bipartisan credit to the fact that we negotiated these earmark reforms
in the last session, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, to their
credit, carried them over and made them better.
Where are we 6 months later? Where are we 6 months into this new
majority? We went three steps forward, and now we went six steps
backwards.
Mr. Chairman, what are we doing?
No transparency, no earmarks in these bills, no opportunity for the
American people, the public, to see what's in this legislation. All we
have in these bills are big slush funds, a $5.9 billion slush fund in
the bill that's coming up next, a $20 billion earmark slush fund in the
bill coming after that.
What does that mean?
They're putting billions and billions of dollars of fiscal space of a
general earmark in these bills, and they're simply saying, this money
will be earmarked afterwards, when I, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee decide to put this money in to go toward pet
projects, pet constituencies, at my choosing, at my scrutinizing, after
Congress has the ability to consider these things on their own merits.
Is that transparency? Is that accountability? Absolutely not, Mr.
Chairman.
They have gone backwards, back on their word, back from bringing
transparency and accountability to Congress.
So let me just say for the record, both parties have messed this up.
Both majorities have seen the light, and this majority is going
backwards on this. That is what this is all about.
We recognize we've got to have more transparency and accountability
in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. That's one of the problems we
have. The other problem is this idea that we can just spend our way
into prosperity, this idea that we can just spend more and more and
more money, and all things wrong in America will be fixed. If only we
take more money out of people's paychecks, bring them up here to
Washington and spend their money, every problem can be solved.
This is the problem we have at a basic philosophical level. Here is
where we are just 6 months into this new majority.
The President gave us a budget. His budget increased spending across
all levels of government. His budget increased discretionary spending.
Well, what happened since that budget came? Six billion new dollars in
February in the omnibus appropriation. Then, just last month, $17
billion in new spending of unrelated, nonrequested spending in an
emergency appropriation bill to go to funding the troops in Iraq, $17
billion that has nothing to do with Iraq.

[[Page H6370]]

And now, $21 billion in more spending. $43 billion out the window, out
the door in new spending in just 6 months.
How do you balance the budget, Mr. Chairman? You balance it by
controlling spending.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. We believe you balance the budget by
controlling spending, not raising taxes. And at the end of the day,
this is what the differences are.
The majority brought to the floor a bill and passed the largest tax
increase in American history. They modified it to possibly reduce that
to the second largest tax increase in American history. So what can
they do? Raise more spending and raise taxes to balance the budget.
We want to balance the budget at a much lower level of taxing and
spending. We want more transparency in the process. We want to control
Federal spending, and we want the American people to see exactly how
their money is being spent so that their Representative can call these
issues into question, not put the power in one man's hands here in
Congress, which is the current proposal before us.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it's been an interesting process these last, give or
take, 24 hours. As a freshman legislator who spent 24 years in the
Tennessee State senate, in those 24 years in the senate I saw the
parties work together. Democrats and Republicans worked together for
the betterment of our State. We had Republican governors. We had
Democratic governors. We had Republican and Democratic legislators.
What America wants is for the parties to work together. On most of
the bills we've had, they were brought by Democrats, and it's been
called a Democratic Congress, but many of the bills that were passed by
this Congress were done in a bipartisan way.
There were Republicans who voted for stem cell, not a majority, I
believe, but Republicans voted for the stem cell research. There were
some Republicans who even voted for the minimum wage. There were
Republicans who thought prescription drug prices should come down.
There were Republicans who even cared about college loans being brought
down. There were bipartisan efforts to bring about progress.
There was much less bipartisanship in the effort to save lives in
Iraq and end that wasteful and unfortunate policy we have in the Middle
East, but--however, there was bipartisanship.
During this debate, one of the most serious requests debates we could
have, the Homeland Security bill to protect us from natural disasters,
to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorists, we have gotten into
the most divisive partisan debate that I've seen in this Congress in
the 5 months I've been here.
Much of the debate has not been about the Homeland Security bill,
unfortunately, Mr. Chairman. It's been about attempts to attack our
Speaker, the first woman ever elected Speaker of this House of
Representatives, a great day in this country when the glass ceiling was
broken, when a great lady was put in this position, the highest
position a woman has ever been in in the legislative body in the
history of the United States. To try to tear down the Speaker, trying
to tear down the party and trying to bring up other issues, rather than
talking about Homeland Security.
Yesterday, Congressman Arcuri spoke, a former prosecutor. He said,
you know, in opening statements if a person talks about the facts,
they've got a case. And if they talk about things other than the facts,
they don't. And the opposition party has not talked about the facts.
They've brought up everything but the facts of the Homeland Security
bill. They really haven't shown where there are problems with this
bill.
The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman, talked about, used all the buzz
words, the buzz words of ``slush fund,'' ``pet projects,'' ``pork'' and
others.
The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and he knows it as well as
everybody else knows it, he's not against those things. He just wants
his slush fund, his pet projects and his pork. And when people throw
those terms out, because that's not what they are, they are Congress
citing specific needs to be placed in the law to that represent their
districts. But then what he does is disparage government.
I have spent my life in government, my entire life, and I've found it
a great calling, and I think we should all try to make people think
more and better about government and have young people see this as a
high calling, Mr. Chairman. There are young people in our audience.
They should see this as a place where they want to serve and see
government as working, and I think some of them do.
But to use these terms in a disparaging way when what the party's
trying to do is to say, we want our share, we want our earmarks, not
pork, but our earmarks, is wrong. And it's wrong when you take the oath
of office to uphold the Constitution. You should be upholding
government and supporting government.
And it's unfortunate we've seen this. This has been a low point in
the Congress since I've been here.
I am proud to be a part of this Congress. There are many Members on
the other side of the aisle that I'm proud to serve with as well. There
are some very, very fine people, and I'm sure the gentlemen who have
spoken today are all fine people.
But we need to rise above some of this partisanship, try to pass this
Homeland Security bill, protect our country, and inspire people to
serve in government and realize that it's a process, and the process
involves the Senate, and it involves the executive, it involves both
sides of the aisle. And to try to tear down one side tears down
government in general. We're all part of the process, and I wish we'd
work together and pass this bill.
We were up till 2 o'clock this morning because of seven moves to rise
and have the committee adjourn. All seven failed. They knew they were
all going to fail. And it was a burden on the staff, it was a burden on
the Congress, and probably a burden on people that wanted to watch
something else on C-SPAN last night.
But with that, Mr. Chairman, I just encourage our colleagues to
support this bill, to protect America and to have a debate that is
germane to the issues concerning homeland security.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I intend to yield a couple of minutes to my colleague here.
But before I do, my colleague who just spoke said that we ought to be
working together, and I really agree with that. The problem is, to my
knowledge, the people on our side really weren't consulted about these
appropriation bills in any real detail, and we didn't know that they
were going to put pork-barrel projects in the bill after the fact,
maybe in conference committee when we didn't have any idea what was
going on there and we didn't have any control over those bills because
they weren't, those pork-barrel projects weren't debated here on the
floor.
So let me just say that we really should work together, and I hope
you'll convey that to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so
in the future we won't be taking this much time on the floor.
I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for
yielding.
I want to say to the person who just spoke, who referenced me, that
my motivation here is just to come and get more pork for myself. I know
the gentleman's new here, but he doesn't know me, if that's what he
said.
He also mentioned that you want to make this system more democratic.
We should be here fighting for good government and for democracy and
fairness. Is giving one man in this body this power like Caesar, to
decide whether or not earmarks go in and out of bills, democratic? Is
that small D democratic?
Is giving all the power to one chairman on how all 32,000 earmark
requests in his power, is that democratic? Or should we have the
ability, as Democrats and Republicans, in a small D democracy, the
ability to vote on these things?
Shouldn't the American people have the choice and the ability to see
how their money is being spent? Or should we, in the name of good
government, give the chairman of the Appropriations Committee sole
discretion, sole

[[Page H6371]]

decision-making power, on how tens of billions of dollars are spent on
tens of thousands of projects?
That's democracy? That's good government? That's fairness? I think
not, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the idea that we should simply relegate our power, our
voting cards, our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents, to
one chairman of one committee to spend tens of billions of our
taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on tens of thousands of projects, if we
think that that is good government, that is fairness, that is what
democracies do, that is not my opinion. That is not my value. That is
not what I think democracy is all about.
I believe we are here to fight for fairness, transparency,
accountability. And what we are here to do is to make sure that our
taxpayers dollars are spent wisely, that they are spent in a
transparent way, that there is accountability in this system.
Why on earth does each and every one of us want to delegate our
lawmaking power and authority to one person to decide how our taxpayer
dollars are spent is beyond me. But for those of you who say that our
motivation is simply to get a bigger slice of the pie, to get more
pork-barrel spending, that's just not the case. And I think that's
insulting.

{time} 1500

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. COHEN. I apologize to you for that. I don't know you personally,
and I was reflecting on the politicians in general, all of our
government representatives, Democrats and Republicans. So as far as any
direct thing, I shouldn't have said that specifically, and I think you
have got a wonderful reputation and I appreciate the fact that your
germaneness has returned to you in this debate.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. I appreciate that and I want to be fair and
civil here.
But this is a big issue, Mr. Chairman. It is not about delaying some
bill. It is about bringing accountability and transparency back to the
process in how we spend taxpayer dollars, and it is about not going
back on your word, and that is what this majority is doing.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for his remarks, and I agree with him.
The fact of the matter is that there is billions of dollars in pork
that is stuck in this bill or will be stuck in this bill and nobody in
this place knows what it is going to be. And many of the liberal
newspapers that support your side of the aisle, the Democrat side of
the aisle, are taking issue with this practice. So even your own
supporters, the New York Times and Washington Post, are giving you
Hades for this.
So I would just like to say my colleagues, you ought to reevaluate
what you are doing today because I think it is hurting you. You are
sticking a knife in your own foot by doing this.
Now, the thing I would like to say before my time runs out is that
the Democrats, since they have taken charge, have increased in
authorization bills by $105 billion in new spending. They are hiding
pork, as I said, from the American people.
They want to let the tax cuts expire, which means that everybody in
this country will have a tax increase. In Indiana it will amount to
about $2,200 per person. That is because you are letting the tax cuts
expire.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rahall). The gentleman's time has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, if the tax cuts expire, that in
effect is a tax increase. And that tax increase will amount to $392
billion on the American people, the largest tax increase in American
history.
This second-degree amendment here only cuts $9 million in spending.
Just $9 million. You guys have already authorized $105 billion in new
spending. Why in the world would you object to a $9 million spending
cut? It doesn't make sense.
My colleague from Tennessee just said that we ought to work together.
I really agree with that, and I hope that my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle and the appropriations chairman will take that to
heart and in the future not do the things that he did in this bill so
we won't have to stay here all night and all day debating the same
paragraph in one bill because you won't work with the Republican
minority. You always complained about us and now you are doing worse.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind the gentleman from
Indiana to address his remarks to the Chair.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, in order to work in this House, there are many good
friends that we engage with, and I just listened to a good friend of
mine on the other side of the aisle. But I think we are missing the
straight and narrow road as our colleagues continue to be repetitive
and a broken record.
Let me indicate that almost like the terminology ``border security''
and ``war against terror,'' there is no disagreement between the
parties in terms of transparency, I would hope, in this new Congress.
My good friends on the other side of the aisle know that the stumbles
that they made in the last Congresses motivated the American public to
change hands as it relates to the majority. It is certainly foolish for
them to think that this majority would muddle it up by not furthering
the challenges and the instructions given by the people, which was
transparency. And I know that they know that no earmark will move to
finality without the American public's having the opportunity to
scrutinize and to assess those earmarks of each Member. Earmarks that
must serve the American public not special interests.
But now we are in a state which calls to question the commitment of
the minority to this whole issue of homeland security. I know that all
of us can find a number of different ways to utilize these dollars.
What we found from many Members on this side of the aisle is that we
have attempted to plus-up, for example, the urban area grants, which
help the high-tier, particularly sensitive, and troubled and terror-
prone cities around America, that is, moving dollars to improve the
security of vulnerable areas.
The simple reduction of funds does not speak to the singular question
and the responsibility of the Homeland Security authorizing committee,
which I have the honor of serving on as the subcommittee Chair with my
chairman, the Honorable Bennie Thompson.
We know every day, as the chairman of the subcommittee on Homeland
Security for appropriations, David Price, does, and I know his ranking
member, that every day questions of homeland security appear before the
American public. I have a personal remembrance, Mr. Chairman, of
singing on the steps of this body ``America the Beautiful'' on that
forlorn day, a day that no American could ever have imagined in their
life, those who were not of the World War II generation to have
remembered Pearl Harbor, but no one could have fathomed the strike that
came to us on September 11, 2001. It was then that we changed our
complete mindset that we had no time, no leeway, no latitude, if you
will, to play around the edges of homeland security. We are doing that
and we have done that last night. We did that all into the wee hours,
playing around homeland security.
And while we fiddle away the time, the first responder and port
security grant program is languishing, dollars that are needed by those
on the front lines. State grants regarding law enforcement, urban area
grants that Houston, as one of the tier-one cities, certainly would be
losing and many in the State of Texas. Albeit the incident at JFK is
still being explored, even the thought that individuals would have the
knowledge to explode a pipeline that would then literally obliterate an
airport and the surrounding areas says that we are fiddling while Rome
is burning.
And so I want to work with my colleagues. I know that the chairman of
this subcommittee does. The chairman of our full Committee on Homeland
Security, the authorizing committee, wants to as well. There are issues
that we want to confront, and, certainly, I want the most secure
airports one can

[[Page H6372]]

find, not only the area where the traveling public is but the area
where employees are, the area where workers are, the back part of the
airport. I want pipelines to be safe.
And as it relates to the issue dealing with preparedness, we were in
a subcommittee hearing today where the question has come up whether the
disabled are secure, whether the vulnerable communities are secure.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say we are fiddling while Rome is
burning. We need to move forward because the question will be for the
American public when a tragedy happens, as I close, where were you and
what did you do? They will just film what happened last night and what
is happening today, and we will not be able to answer the question with
dignity.
The leadership in this House believes in homeland security. We need
to move this bill forward.
Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I too am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I was also a
Federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, and I
also serve on the Ethics Committee. I would respectfully submit that we
are not muddling up the process but rather trying to restore ethics and
integrity to the process and to this institution.
In my view, this is Congress at its worst. Our colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have created a secret slush fund with billions
in secret earmarks hidden from public scrutiny. This comes on the heels
of many broken promises that we heard, promises such as from Speaker
Pelosi: ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process
and to the use of earmarks.''
The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said: ``We are going to adopt rules
that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't
legislate in the dark of the night.''
Yet that is exactly what is occurring in this body. CNN, not exactly
a conservative think tank, actually said that the Democrats promised
reform and it is not happening: ``The `anti-earmark reforms' are just
for show. Mere window dressing.'' This process signals a retreat in the
secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. Earmarks
should always be open to public vetting, full debate, and floor
challenge, as we attempted to do in the last Congress.
Now, Mr. Obey and the Democrats are stuck between the pork and those
campaign promises that they made. And so those promises are given away.
The majority wants this Congress to operate behind closed doors in dark
corridors where the precept of Justice Brandeis that ``sunlight is the
best disinfectant'' is hardly known. The powerful impact of public
debate and a free press are critical features of an American democracy
and they are missing, Mr. Chairman. They are missing here today in this
Congress.
Secrecy creates a breeding ground for corruption. Openness is an
important part of ensuring that government officials are acting in the
best interest of the public and that the citizens are not being
manipulated by special interest groups.
Here we have one man, one man and an unelected staff, determining the
power of the purse for the United States Congress, acting on behalf of
435 Members elected by the United States. Yet we have one man to make
all the decisions about the spending for the United States Government.
This is not, I submit, a democracy. This is a monarchy.
And to quote James Cooper: ``A monarchy is the most expensive of all
forms of government, the regal state requiring a costly parade, and he
who depends on his own power to rule must strengthen that power by
bribing the active and enterprising whom he cannot intimidate.
``A nation is truly corrupt, when, after having, by degrees lost its
character and liberty, it slides from democracy into aristocracy for
monarchy; this is the death of the political body . . . ''
Someone said: ``The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the
best weapon of democracy should be the weapon of openness.'' That is
what we are trying to achieve here today.
I will close with a quote from Lord Byron, and I think he sums up
this debate better than any quote I have heard when he said: ``The
Cardinal is at his wit's end; it is true that he had not far to go.''
Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The question of earmarks really has two questions to it. But, first,
why are we here having a debate about earmarks? We are because in the
12 years before the last election, the use of earmarks, something that
has been around since the beginning of the Republic, exploded and it
went from around $5 billion in the budget to around $13 billion in the
budget. And it really raises two questions, aside from the political
opportunism that may present itself in this debate.
The first question about earmarks is whether it is appropriate for
individuals who have the most power in this Congress to take advantage
of their situation to get appropriations that go to their districts.
Generally, the projects that are funded are projects that are supported
and worthwhile. But, in fact, in the budgetary process, it is the
people who are in the right committees or have the most power that have
the opportunity to get the greatest benefit.

{time} 1515

By the way, that is a fairness issue just within this body, because
if there is going to be allocation of resources, they should be
extended for the benefit of the entire country, people in each and
every one of the 435 congressional districts, people in each of the 50
States and our territories.
The second issue is a budgetary reform issue. If you have
appropriation by earmarks, if highway projects are funded on the basis
of who is on the committee or who is in leadership or who has the ear
of the Chair, then it means that decisions are being made on personal
relationships as opposed to public need.
I come from a State legislature, Mr. Chairman, where we had to
wrestle with this question of earmarks. And every legislator had an
immense amount of pressure on them to deliver for their district; in
fact, the needs of the district were compelling and reasonable. We had
to struggle with an approach that would take the limited funds that
were available in our treasury and allocate them for highway projects
on the basis of where the greatest need was in the State, not on the
basis of who had the most clout.
So, Mr. Chairman, this debate that has resulted in eight motions to
rise, spending over 10 hours on what essentially looks like a minor and
very political amendment is really not about earmarks, because there
has been a complete erasing of history in the role that the other side
has played in getting us to the point where we are on earmarks.
Also, this debate on earmarks is taking place in the Homeland
Security bill, which is a bill that traditionally has not had earmarks.
We could be having a debate about the MILC price support program and
arguing about earmarks, but there are no earmarks that have been part
of the Homeland Security bill in this Congress or, to its credit, in
prior Congresses.
So, why is it that we are arguing about, admittedly an important
issue, the question of earmarks and what impact it has on questions of
fairness and what impact it has on questions of fiscal responsibility
in the Homeland Security bill, that has independent integrity and
importance to the people of this country, and where the history has
been that there are no earmarks?
It would allow a reasonable observer to conclude that essentially
this is about politics. In fact, it is my view and, I think, the view
of most people that we really should not be injecting politics into the
question of homeland security.
Mr. Chairman, you come from the City of New York. You, better than
anyone else, know the urgency of making certain that we have our
borders protected, that we are taking aggressive and effective measures
to combat terrorism, to detect terrorists coming into our country, to
have adequate funds and resources for our local fire departments and
our local police stations. So, Mr. Chairman, the loser here is one
person, it is the American people. And who wins and who loses in this
political debate, whether it's the other side or our side, we will let
the commentators decide.
We are making no progress on moving ahead on an earmark reform
approach, largely because the vehicle

[[Page H6373]]

that the other side has chosen to use is holding hostage a Homeland
Security bill that doesn't have earmarks in it, won't have earmarks in
it, in the past has not had earmarks in it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Weiner). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Fallin

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Fallin:
In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and
Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $138,000)''.

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the executive
salary in the Office of Secretary and Executive Management account to
the FY 2007 level, representing a $138,000 reduction from the $4.588
million to $4.45 million. The current bill's funding level represents a
3 percent increase over 2007 FY budget enacted.
There has been at least $105.5 billion in new 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, and growing by over $1 billion a day. Entitlement spending,
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is out of control, and within a
generation will either force significant cutbacks in services and
benefits, or we are going to have to have massive tax increases.
Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office and Government
Accountability Office has been warning Congress that the growth in
direct spending, i.e., spending that is on autopilot, and the outside
annual spending process are 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 will be the first 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 ways to do more
with less. The Federal budget must not grow faster than American
families have the ability to pay for it.
Mr. Chairman, I have to say that in my State, my citizens are very
concerned about spending in Washington. I have heard a lot of talk this
year about the elections and what occurred during the elections, and
that voters gave us a mandate for change here in Congress, that they
didn't want business as usual. People have told me that Congress spends
too much, and we have to remember that the money that we spend here is
not our money; it's the taxpayers' money.
And the taxpayers' pocketbooks are stretched these days. The price of
gasoline has been skyrocketing, the price of health care, the price of
prescription drugs. Families are just squeezed these days. And I
believe it is time that we have this discussion about controlling our
spending.
Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with slowing down this process.
I think the American people want us to slow down the spending process.
They want us to look at balancing our budget. They want us to
prioritize here in Congress what's important, what's a spending
priority. They want us to reduce the deficit.
They want to know where the money is going. They appreciate us fine-
tuning our appropriation bill. And it seems reasonable to me that we
have this discussion. That is why I support this amendment.
There is a 13 percent increase in spending in this appropriation
bill, and that's huge. When you have $1 billion here and $1 billion
there, that all adds up, and we still have many other appropriation
bills to consider. And frankly, no one in my district has called me to
say, you know what? The government doesn't spend enough. I want you to
spend more. They want us to look for government waste. They want us to
control spending.
And while we are increasing spending in this Congress, we have yet to
even look at other issues that we need to discuss, the rising costs of
entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
Mr. Chairman, last night I heard the majority leader talk about
securing America and the funding of homeland security and how important
this piece of legislation is. I appreciate his comments, and I agree
with that; it is important that we secure America. I don't believe that
anyone on my side of the aisle objects to funding homeland security.
The objections that we have been talking about over the last 24 hours
are about spending. It is about the process of determining how the
earmarks are processed and projects are processed.
I want to remind this House that the President and a Republican
Congress led the effort to fund homeland security and to protect our
Nation. We support homeland security. But I would also like to suggest
that securing America also means the financial security of America, the
financial security of our Nation. And financial security comes through
transparency, openness and open discussion on this House floor of
spending and spending priorities, and allowing Members to participate
and to vote on those priorities in the light of day.
This process of voting on a level of funding for homeland security,
then having a conference report and then having one person in Congress
and their staff decide on the add-ons, the earmarks we're spending, to
me just doesn't pass the openness test and the transparency test.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms.
Fallin) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Fallin was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Ms. FALLIN. When I was a kid, we used to have a game we played called
``King of the Hill.'' And that would be when one person would get on
this hill and we would fight off others who would come and try to take
control.
This process reminds me of the game ``King of the Hill'', where one
person is trying to play that. I just don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that
that is the right thing to do.
This is our opportunity in Congress to show that we mean business in
controlling our spending, we mean business in reducing our deficit, we
mean business in transparency and openness of earmarks. And we can't
lose this opportunity, we can't take a step back.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to request that our appropriations
chairman, who is a very capable and able man, delay consideration of
this bill until we have proper transparency in the earmark process. It
is a choice that the majority can make now, starting with this first
appropriation bill. The majority is in control. And also, the
appropriations chairman could come to the floor to this debate and
assure this body and the Members that we will be able to see the
individual earmarks and vote on them on this floor.
This process will not allow us to do that the way it is now. And what
better way to start off the appropriations process than to start with
this bill, with transparency on the earmarks, transparency of funding?
Let's fix it now, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a few comments on the proposed
amendment, and perhaps a reality check, since the Member offering the
amendment has neglected some important facts that would put this in
perspective.
Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, once again, goes after the
Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Virtually every amendment
we have dealt with in this long debate has chosen that target.
We just finished 10 hours of debate on an attempt to cut in half the
Secretary's legal advice office. Now, this amendment would cut funding
from the

[[Page H6374]]

requested level for the Office of the Executive Secretary.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle have spoken all day about
the President's requests. Well, what the introducer of this amendment
didn't tell us was that the bill, actually cuts $539,000 from the
President's request for this item. So we are well under the President's
request, and she wants to cut it further.
For department operations overall, we have cut $73 million from the
President's request, and our recommended amount is also less than was
provided for 2007. So, it is not as though we are funding the
departmental offices lavishly. Quite the contrary, we have scrutinized
the requests carefully. We have cut the requests considerably. But we
have tried to give the Department the funds that it needs to maintain
its own operations.
Now, we have debated an amendment for 10 hours having to do with the
general counsel's office. Last night, we were treated to eight motions
to rise, eight motions to go home without continuing or completing work
on this bill. I think any fair observer would say this is an attempt to
obstruct and to delay. These are desultory motions.
So, now we have another amendment in that same vein. This comes on
top of days of our Republican friends railing against bureaucrats. Not
one voice on the minority side said a thing in defense of the Bush
Administration's legitimate needs for the Department, needs which we
have assessed and have actually cut back the funding for, but needs
which, nonetheless, one would expect Republican Members to have some
interest in, some sensitivity to. Not one voice was raised in defense.

{time} 1530

All I can say is that we have scrubbed these administrative items
very conscientiously. We have reduced them overall and in particular.
So we are confident in our recommendations. But we do have to ask, why?
Why should we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for the
administration, stand up for the Bush administration's own Department,
when Republicans themselves are unwilling to do so?
Now, we are well aware that not every Republican feels this way.
There are Republicans and Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way
on Homeland Security on this bill and over many years. But the group of
Republicans who are dominating this debate seem to have no regard for
that, no interest in it. So it falls to us to defend their own
administration. And we are not inclined to make a very strong
recommendation on this amendment.
If the Republican Members of this House want to take money away from
this account that we have already reduced considerably, then they can
be our guest.
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard comments in this Chamber today that there
are attempts on this side of the aisle to obstruct. I'll tell you what
the attempt is that we are making over here. It is to shed light on a
topic that is now of interest to Americans. We had a Member come into
the Chamber last evening, and he was talking about an earmark that he
had requested, the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
There aren't a lot of people that understood our jargon. They didn't
understand our acronyms. It seems like every occupation has its own
language. But when the American people started reading about the
``Bridge to Nowhere,'' when it was on the cover of Parade magazine,
when you were in the doctor's office waiting and you picked up the
Reader's Digest trying to kill a little time, golly, here was an
article in the Reader's Digest about the ``Bridge to Nowhere.''
So suddenly the term ``earmark'' has come to be understood by the
American public. They started reading a little more, and they started
finding out about earmarks and how people in Congress with seniority,
with a great deal of power because of their seniority, had the ability
to direct spending.
It is like when I talk to a high school or a junior high or middle
school class. I always tell them, Government has no money of its own.
The only money that government has is the money that is extracted from
its citizens.
Mr. Chairman, I try to impress this upon young people and try to get
them prepared for the first day after they have worked on a job. They
get their paycheck and then they take a look at it, and they see how
much government is taking out of their paycheck. I want them to start
thinking right away about how government spends its money.
I think a lot of Americans, whether Democrat, Republican, if you
looked at the political spectrum, whether they were conservative or
moderate or liberal, they got a little upset to think about how some
individuals had that much power to take tax dollars from people all
over the United States and spend them on a project that they deemed
important.
I will never forget the first time I was in a press conference, Mr.
Chairman, with a number of other Members when we were looking at an
omnibus bill, and the visual, just having all those pages right there
on a chair was startling. There were all those things in there called
``earmarks,'' and some were just downright silly. I mean, the American
public would groan when they would think that Members would take money
from citizens around the country and then spend them that way.
So as we worked through this reform process, as we talked about it,
we had heroes in our midst that would get up time after time and try to
go after some of these egregious earmarks and get beaten back. But you
can't always determine who is going to win the war when you look at
individual battles.
Although those individual battles were lost, we are going to win the
war on this earmark thing because the American people know right from
wrong. They know there should not be an abuse of power where someone on
their unelected staff, and I have to tell you, I admire the staffers on
Capitol Hill, most of them are young, because we have long days and we
have hard work and it takes someone with a sharp mind and dedication to
work, but they are not accountable to anybody's constituent.
When I go home to my district, I can read letters to the editor about
me. People can call me personally on the phone. People can come to my
office. Even though each of us represents over 600,000 people, we are
approachable, and we have to be accountable. But staff is not
accountable when you have power vested in one individual.
In my family we have a little saying. We say, Does somebody think
they are God? And because we are God-fearing Christians, we do not
believe that we are talking about capital G-O-D. What we are talking
about is G-A-W-D. Who does an individual think they are when they try
to exercise this kind of power?
The American public has an innate sense of right and wrong. The
public's business should not be done in private, with one all-knowing
individual surrounded by staff, getting in letters or comments whether
this earmark is good or this earmark is bad. Maybe eventually we will
have a sign that says ``thumbs up'' or ``thumbs down'' just to conserve
time. That is not right. The American people know it, and we all know
it.
There has been a problem with earmarks for a long time. Today is the
day that we need our friends on the other side of the aisle to admit
what we know what they know, and what they know we know, and reform
this process.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs.
Musgrave) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Musgrave was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, today is the day that we know the
American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent.
If we're going to have earmarks, let's have the whole Congress, 435 of
us, duly elected by our constituents, give it an up-or-down vote and
have individuals who want an earmark have the courage to stand up and
convince them, again, whether Republican, Democrats, conservative,
moderate, liberal, wherever you put them on the political spectrum, the
American people's business should be conducted in public, and the
American people know that.
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would say that I really miss the
grand old days of the liberal tax-and-spend party, because the great
liberals in our Nation's recent history were never ashamed about being
honest with the

[[Page H6375]]

American people that they wanted to raise taxes and they wanted to
increase spending. In fact, they campaigned on increasing taxes and
they campaigned on increasing spending.
One of the problems we have with the hypocrisy in what is going on in
the last 6 months is that we are dramatically increasing taxes, $392
billion, secretly and surreptitiously, through the budget bill that
repeals the most pro-growth tax cuts since Ronald Reagan was President.
And now we have a process by which American taxpayers' money will be
spent in secret, behind closed doors and in the dark. I really admire
the grand old liberal days, when raising taxes and increasing spending
was something that was done just right out in the open, where everybody
could see it and debate it.
I have heard in the last 10 hours of debate that Republicans have
been accused of being repetitious. It is better to be repetitive than
disingenuous or hypocritical, in my view.
Winston Churchill once famously said that there is nothing that one
government learns so readily from another as how to spend other
people's money. I would tell you that there is a critical process that
is being undermined here that is important to a functioning Congress
and that will embarrass this institution if we don't stop it right now.
That is why this debate is so important. It is not about $1 million
or $1 billion here or there. It is about how we go forward in spending
the people's money in a transparent, honest and open fashion.
We have had our Democratic colleagues point out, I think fairly, that
Republicans maybe aren't in the best glass house to throw stones when
it comes to the issue of spending money or earmarks. I will tell you
that it is very important that we acknowledge Republican failures.
Not all of us were happy with some of the things that happened in my
last 6 years. For example, I voted against numerous GOP-led
appropriation bills. I voted for virtually all of Congressman Jeff
Flake's amendments. I was on occasion punished by having my own
priorities stripped out of bills.
I voted for cuts in every GOP appropriations bill in my first 6
years. I criticized our Republican President for overspending and for
not exercising his veto to discipline Congress. I criticized my own
leadership. I supported every reform effort I can think of in the
methods of opening up earmark processes to transparency and honesty. I
even went on national TV and said that the Republican-led Congress was
spending money like drunken sailors.
I have to tell you, a Navy captain in California admonished me. He
said Congress was not spending money like drunken sailors; that drunken
sailors spend their own money, and, when they run out, they quit
spending. And I have to give it to him.
So I want to tell you that not all of us are coming here and
ridiculing things that we have not ridiculed in the past. I applauded
the Democratic reforms that were promised in terms of transparency and
earmarks. As soon as we were told back in January that the reform-
minded Democrats were going to open up the process and make it
transparent, I said publicly that that would be one good thing about a
Congress that I otherwise disagreed with its priorities.
But here I am 6 months later ruing the day that I ever said something
nice about intentions, because the intentions never materialized. In
fact, we have gone dramatically backwards. We are now going to have 434
of us give our proxy to the appropriations chairmen, all the cardinals
and Chairman Obey, and we are going to let them decide how to spend the
people's money.
We did away with proxy voting decades ago in Congress, and now we are
going to have spending by proxy. That is wrong. It is fundamentally an
affront to the American people, and it undermines the entire
legislative process.
I can tell you that I was Speaker of the Florida legislature, and
when there was trouble because of poor spending, it was almost always
due to lack of honesty, openness, and transparency. And the Democratic
leadership will rue the day, sooner than later, that it put a cloud of
secrecy around spending the taxpayers' dollars. They will regret going
back on their word.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I was doing some math, and I am sure my colleagues are
aware of this. If you are not, you might be shocked. We spent 10 hours
on a debate to cut $8 million from the general counsel. Now, you talk
about waste. This place runs, the electricity runs, the people are on
salary, and that side made us spend 10 hours just to cut $ 8 million,
with eight motions to rise to stop the work.
Now, nowhere does anyone get up and discuss the issues in this bill.
The bill continues to be a good bill. No matter how much you attack it,
no matter how much you avoid dealing with the true issue, the center
issue, it continues to be a good bill. I think what is happening here
is, as time goes on and different folks and different Members pay
attention, we have to continue to repeat some of the things that we
have said before, because you put us in that situation.
So, with that in mind, let me remind you that this is the Homeland
Security bill. This is the bill and this is the issue that, according
to a lot of folks on talk radio, the Republican Party is supposed to be
very strong on. Democrats are supposed to be strong on some issues and
Republicans are supposed to be strong on some issues, but according to
what you tell the world, you are stronger on this.
Mr. Chairman, they claim to be stronger than anyone else in the
universe on homeland security, yet you have spent all night, all night,
trying to destroy this Homeland Security bill which protects the
homeland.

{time} 1545

As I said before, I represent New York City. I was in New York on the
day of September 11 and we personally, as the rest of the Nation well
knows, suffered the pain of having a terrorist attack. Immediately
thereafter, we came to the House floor and we created the Department of
Homeland Security. That's what this bill is. This is not a bill that
talks about earmarks.
Let's try it again.
Now, as you know, I speak two languages, but out of respect to the
stenographer, I won't use Spanish, so I will remind you in English,
there are no earmarks in this bill. I would say it in Spanish, but I
don't know how to say ``earmarks'' in Spanish. As soon as I do, I'll
find a way to say it.
But I'll say it in English again: There are no earmarks in this bill.
There's only security for the homeland. There's port security. There is
work for border agents. There is strengthening of cargo shipments, of
our airlines, of finding ways to protect ourselves from the possible
next terrorist attack. That's what this bill does.
And you spend hour after hour after hour with procedural motions to
adjourn to go home, to stop working and telling us that there are
somehow earmarks in here that have to come to the light of day and
telling us that a new process and a new system has been invented. Yes,
a new one is in place. It's one that is going to tell us who, which
Member of Congress, asked for money to go to a certain program in his
or her district and throughout the Nation.
And let me tell you something. I don't have a problem with that. I
don't think that the administration or the bureaucrats are the only
people who know how to spend money. I think I know how to spend some
dollars in my district. And all an earmark is, is that we tell the
agency, spend so much money, usually a very small amount in that
particular group, to help that particular group of students, or that
particular environmental issue, or to clean up that particular toxic
waste. There's not a problem with that.
But when you stand here and tell us that this is what this bill does
and that somehow there is a system that has been set up that is
horrible, you're kidding yourselves. And so I must do something that I
didn't want to do, and I'm not going to mention names because that's
not proper. But do you know, my fellow Republicans, that 65 of you have
written letters to me, chairman of a subcommittee, asking for 137
projects totaling close to $350 million?
Now, I didn't get a chance to ask my chairman, Mr. Obey, but the
committee that I chair, Financial Services and General Government, is
not one of the larger budgets. I shouldn't admit that in public, but it
isn't one of the

[[Page H6376]]

largest budgets, and it doesn't have that many areas where you can
earmark even if you wanted to. But 65 of you have asked for 137
programs for $340 million. Some of you have spoken on the floor.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair would remind all Members to address
their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
and to speak in favor of the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Fred Bastiat said in the dawn of this Republic that
government is that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to
live at the expense of everyone else. I am not sure if there are too
many subjects other than earmark transparency being debated here today
that hold more relevance to such a comment, and I am afraid that
Members of both parties are unwilling to admit that.
It is critically important that we do because it comes down to the
very core of who we are as Americans and whether or not we are still
capable of self-governance, and whether or not we will allow the fabric
of liberty that has been so carefully woven throughout the years to be
torn asunder while we all stand by and watch.
So to that end, Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members of this body of
some of the promises made by those in the majority only a few short
months ago.
One prominent Member said explicitly, ``We will bring transparency
and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks.''
Another 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. 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.'' Of course this was after campaigning on the
pledge to, quote, ``make this House the most honest, ethical, and open
Congress in history.''
But, Mr. Chairman, these promises, though unequivocally made, have
been unequivocally broken. Reforms designed to ensure openness,
transparency and accountability have been trampled underfoot by the
very Members who so vocally called for their enactment. We saw this
most egregiously in March of this year with the emergency supplemental
legislation, when funds were desperately needed to provide for our men
and women in uniform and instead they were laden with $21 billion in
irrelevant pork-barrel spending.
Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are seeing it again today in this
capricious decision to blatantly shut the American public out of one of
the most important and necessary duties of this House and our
representative form of government, that of allocating taxpayer funds
for the general good of the American people.
The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has arbitrarily decided
that a few select Members of Congress are more capable of ascertaining
the public good than the public is itself. Their actions imply that
these Members should be allowed, behind closed doors, to decide where
tax dollars are spent without being indebted in any way to the
collective intelligence and scrutiny of the general public, the press,
the media, the blogosphere, and the American people themselves, of
course, who are given the charge to keep their elected Representatives
accountable.
Mr. Chairman, in any other case, this would be called an oligarchy,
the bureaucratic rule of the few over the many. It was this very
arbitrary confiscation of power that once caused our Nation's founders
to throw off the yoke of the Crown of England. A single glance at the
footnotes of history demonstrates clearly that breaching that dam sets
up a dangerous and degenerative historical precedent.
James Madison in the Federalist Papers presaged this misappropriation
of power that we are witnessing today when he said it this way: ``The
apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an
act which seems to require the most exact impartiality. Yet there is no
legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given
to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice.''
Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to recall our
commitment to God and the people we serve, to preserve the rules of
justice. Hidden slush funds, overseen by a very few people in the dark
of night, that is not justice, Mr. Chairman. Camouflaged tax increases
that could be the largest in history, that is not justice.
We come here in a moment of contention, but we can turn that moment
of contention into a time to restore the transparency and
accountability to this appropriations process, and I hope we do that,
Mr. Chairman. I hope we vote for the gentlelady's amendment.
Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
My friend who just spoke and those on the other side of the aisle are
fond often of quoting our Founding Fathers. I'm not a student of James
Madison or some of his brethren, but I would think that they would be
turning in their graves if they watched how this House worked for the
last 12 years.
I come here as a freshman Member and I am speaking from what I saw
from the outside. I am sure this analogy has been used here on the
House floor over the course of the last 10 hours, but listening to
folks on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, complain
about the issues of fiscal responsibility and transparency has got to
conjure up the image of the bull in the china shop. If you let a bull
into a china shop for 12 years and then he just tears down everything
off the walls, he knocks over every case, he breaks every single glass
in there. And then in this case, he runs out of the china shop and
says, Well, why don't you go in there and clean that up? Why doesn't
somebody go clean up the mess that we just made?
That's what happened in this House from those of us who watched it
from afar on the issues of transparency and on fiscal responsibility.
You know, it's interesting. I sat here last night being called back
and forth to the floor for, I guess, eight different motions to shut
down this House and to stop the Homeland Security bill from going
forward, and I wondered why hadn't that happened in the last 12 years.
Why wasn't there a night while we were wasting billions of dollars on
this floor in Iraq, $9 billion that we found out are totally
unaccounted for? Why didn't we shut down the House one night to talk
about that?
As thousands of FEMA trailers were stranded on open lots in the
southeastern United States, why didn't we shut down this House for one
night to talk about that over the last 12 years? While $70 billion in
corporate giveaways were handed out through the Medicare bill, why
didn't we shut down this House to talk about that?
Millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. Record deficits year after
year. Why on earth wasn't this House shut down like it was last night
over the last 12 years?
The American people are probably asking that same question, and there
is probably one answer: This House changed hands. There is a different
party in charge. And so now there is a very different standard that
applies here. The questions that should have been asked for 12 years,
well, now in a political context they are being asked today.
I also don't shy away, Mr. Chairman, from the fact that as a new
Member, I'm also one of the younger Members here. So I kind of feel
that I have an obligation to talk for the millions of my generation
that have just become utterly turned off to politics. And when they
look at a House being shut down overnight into today, who knows how
many more days, to prevent a fairly nonpartisan Homeland Security bill
that will protect them, that will protect their parents, their
neighbors, that will make their communities a safer place, they know
this is about politics, not policy.
And so I think about all of those people who, as they watch this
process unfold, are losing their faith in this institution. As angry as
I am about the double standard that's applied, about the hypocrisy
that's exercised on this House, this House thick with irony over the
past several days, I think also about what people think when they see
members of the Republican Party playing politics with the issue of
homeland security.
Now, we hear claims that this isn't obstruction. We don't have a
problem

[[Page H6377]]

with slowing down the House to talk about this. Well, I would say this.
I think that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they
vastly underestimate the gullibility of the American people. They also
vastly overestimate the amount of patience that the American public has
left for the games that are being played here on the House floor.
We have an obligation to do all the things that we were sent here to
do, to fund homeland security, to protect this Nation. We also have an
obligation to live up to the expectations that people had of this
Congress when it changed hands, to take the politics out of this House
and to start doing the right thing for the American people, not the
right thing for either political party.
I would ask we don't go through tonight what we did last night, that
we start doing what's right for the American people on policy rather
than what's right for the Republican minority on politics.
Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Chair. I will resist the
temptation to point out how my Tigers took two out of three from your
Mets recently.
I, too, am Generation X and was interested in some of the remarks
that were put forward on the floor. First, I do not know that the
people who wrote the Federalist Papers and came up with the system of
limited government would be rolling in their graves at any attempt that
we engage in to stop the obfuscation of earmarks within a process that
is less than transparent.
I would also like to note that it is my preference to refer to the
bull in the china shop as the bull in the Communist China shop. And
speaking of bull, let us not forget that for 4 days this Chamber dealt
with little else than a nonbinding/impotent resolution on Iraq that
resulted in absolutely nothing except the people's business being
delayed for that period of time.
Today, we are here about earmarks and not in general, but in
particular the process by which they are inserted into appropriation
bills. It seems to me that one of the fundamental problems we have in
addressing this is the lack of openness and transparency in the process
and that is what this endeavor is about.
It would also strike me that in discussing this process, it is odd to
hear the new majority using the President of the United States' budget
requests as an absolute baseline of fiscal sanity when throughout the
course of the last 4 years in which I have served in this body, they
have decried this President of the United States as the epitome of
fiscal insanity.
So a baseline request from the President is just that. It is a
request.
Now, in many ways we are then bound as an institution to give
deference to both the authorizing committees and then the appropriating
committees. But we do not delegate carte blanche our individual power
which is vested in us by our constituencies to then oversee the work
product of both the authorizing committees and the appropriating
committees.

{time} 1600

Today we are engaged in trying to exercise and reaffirm the right of
not only ourselves but of Members on the other side of the aisle to be
able to exercise that power that has been temporarily vested in them by
their constituents to fully and fairly vet these bills and to make sure
that the appropriations are what they are claimed to be, and to make
sure that they are put to the best, most efficient and effective
purpose that they can be on behalf of the American people.
Part of the reason this is necessary is not everyone in this Chamber
takes the same approach to earmarks as other Members might. Some
Members do no earmarks at all. Some Members prefer to do many, many
earmarks. And some Members, I cite myself, do earmarks at the request
of their local municipalities so we can serve as conduits back to our
States.
I come from Michigan. It is critical to us that we receive our fair
share of Federal spending because we pay more than our fair share of
Federal taxes. My State, Michigan, is a donor State. Michigan is
currently in a one-state recession, and it is very important that our
taxpayers receive their money back. But that is my individual approach.
That approach has to be vetted by 434 of my colleagues here, and only
an open and transparent process will ensure that if I have made a
priority request through a earmark, it is in keeping with the best
interest not only of my district but within the best interest of the
entire American people.
It would seem to me this is a very reasonable approach, it is a very
reasonable request, and it is a request that we are pressing today, as
we did yesterday, and will continue to do so because it is part of our
constitutional obligation we take as Members of this body.
Were we to do otherwise, it would be a dangerous precedent to set
because in my mind we are tragically on the verge of coming up with a
new kind of system which will allow very little transparency and
openness and thus injure the ability of not only ourselves but the
American people to know how their money is being spent.
In the past there was the old joke that in the Congress you had
Republicans, Democrats and appropriators. If the process that we in the
minority find so offensive is allowed to proceed, you will now have
four distinct entities. You will have Republicans, you will have
Democrats, you will have appropriators, and you will have super-
appropriators.
I don't know if the new super-appropriators get to make these
decisions in the dead of night, also get to wear a cape and cowl, if
they come with a sporty car so they can chase down Federal earmarks, or
if they have a cave or a pole to slide down at their leisure as they go
off to work to spend other people's money.
I think, however, this would be a tragic development and would oppose
it.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
McCotter) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCotter was allowed to proceed for 30
additional seconds.)
Mr. McCOTTER. Finally, as a member of Generation X, I would like to
ask the baby boomers who devised this process to do as you Age of
Aquarians often do, let the sun shine in.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I came to Washington, D.C. on January 4 and was sworn in, took a
solemn pledge to go to work on behalf of the citizens of this great
Nation. We went to work, this side of the aisle, and even with some of
our brothers and sisters from the other side of the aisle, we passed
legislation. We did things for the least of these, such as the minimum
wage. Since then we have taken care of our veterans.
Everything that we have done has ended up being objected to by either
our Chief Executive or by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
It seems like there is no interest in effectuating good legislation on
behalf of the people of this country. It seems as if there is a
conspiracy to hold things up now that there has been a change in power.
It seems there is a conspiracy to throw monkey wrenches in the plans of
those on our side who would do things to pull this country out of
morass that it has been in for the last 6 years.
Last night, Mr. Chairman, was a culmination of that conspiracy. It
resulted in us being here until 2 a.m. handling trivial motions which
were designed to obstruct the progress of the Homeland Security bill
which has made its way through committee and has found itself now in a
state for final passage.
This is a bill that has no earmarks in it, yet we have got the other
side claiming that there is something bad about earmarks happening. The
thing is the American people want us to pass this bill. It is going to
provide moneys for Customs and Border Patrol and border protection. It
is going to help reduce lines at airports by helping fund the
Transportation Security Administration, TSA. It will fund the Coast
Guard. It will even provide funds for FEMA. And it will provide funding
for State and local formula grants. Are we going to pass this bill?
Yes, it is going to pass overwhelmingly when the other side finishes
playing their games. But the American people see through this.
It is deeply disappointing that we would treat these appropriations
bills as a means by which we exercise futile, meaningless and deeply
partisan tactics instead of doing the hard work

[[Page H6378]]

that the American people put us here to do.
I need to remind Members present here today that this debate that we
are having about earmarks is really no debate at all, and it is putting
needed funds at risk to combat terrorism, and it hurts us in keeping
our promises to our veterans and all of the important other issues that
this bill addresses.
My home State of Georgia in particular will be better prepared with
needed funding delivered to the Urban Area Security Initiative and
first responders.
The Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, the busiest airport in the
world, should not suffer because the minority side chooses to hold the
Transportation Security Administration funding hostage.
But instead of debating the merits of the bill, they choose to play
political games. I choose to work. I ask my friends to please drop the
political showmanship and let's proceed to do what the American people
want us to do and what they expect us to do and that is to go to work
and allow ourselves to be guided by the mandate that the American
people have given us.
They clearly told us to gather on this sacred floor to find solutions
to the problems that they are confronted with on a daily basis and not
to engage in the spectacle like what we did last night.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, you decided to take this
vital bill that would provide us with needed protection and turn it
into a political exercise. Now is not the time and here is not the
place to do that. Let's get on with the business and move this bill
forward.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is clear that the gentleman from Georgia is new here because he
has obviously not seen this process played out in the past, or seen his
colleagues on his side take days and days and days to take care of
appropriations bill and to throw problems in our way.
What he is saying is so disingenuous. This bill does not have to be
approved until October 1. The budgets are out there for these agencies
until October 1. This does not have to be done today; it doesn't have
to be done tomorrow. There is plenty of time to do this.
But what the Democrats have allowed us to do is to expose their
hypocrisy. They are giving us that opportunity. Now, we could stop all
of this debate immediately, and we would be happy to do that. All they
have to do is stop shrouding the earmarks in secrecy. They think that
our wanting to expose their secret earmarks is trivial. My constituents
in the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina don't think that
is trivial.
And my colleague here earlier who said that Republicans ask for
earmarks, certainly Republicans ask for earmarks, and I think that is
appropriate. I didn't ask for any earmarks in this bill. I don't know
anybody who asked for earmarks in this bill, but people do. But he
misses the whole point, as the Democrats do. They are now trying to
turn this on us. They are in the majority. They can handle this problem
easily. All they have to do is put out a list of the earmarks, and let
everybody know what they are.
No, we have a chairman who wants to have those earmarks in secret
until after the bills are passed and then vote on them.
Also, my colleague from New York talks about wasting time. Ladies and
gentlemen, I have just been dying to talk about this, and he has given
me the perfect opportunity. The majority party said we are going to
have people in Washington 5 days a week so you will work. Well, I work
very hard when I'm in my district. I know they love to be in
Washington, D.C., but let me tell you about waste of time. Let me tell
you about some of the bills that have been brought to this floor for us
to vote on. It goes on and on and on. There has been one substantive
bill signed by the President in 6 months of this Congress.
But let me tell you some of the wonderful, exciting, necessary bills:
Recognizing National Americorps Week; supporting the goals and ideals
of National Public Works Week; honoring the contributions of the Rocky
Mountain Senior Games on its 30th anniversary; in observance of
National Physical Education and Sports Week; supporting the goals and
ideals of Financial Literacy Month; honoring the 50th anniversary of
the international geophysical year; expressing the support for National
Foster Parents Day; honoring the life and accomplishments of Gian Carlo
Menotti; recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music
education; recognizing the 45th anniversary of John Hershel Glenn's
historic achievement; supporting the goals and ideals of National
Community College Month.
That's why we come to Washington 5 days a week and that our
colleagues think that our wanting to shed the light of day on these
egregious earmarks is trivial? Folks, I want to tell you, the people in
my district do not think it is trivial, but they think some of that
stuff we have been voting on, and I could spend the next 5 days reading
out the titles of these bills when we talk about waste of time.
But let me tell you, even their press, their friendly press, gets it;
and I think the American public gets it. They want to change the topic
and make it look like we are obstructing justice. We are shedding light
on the problems.
CNN, again, not a bastion of conservativeness said: When Democrats
took control of Congress, they promised lawmakers would go public with
their requests for funding. They have not done so.
Earmarks should be scrutinized before spending bills go into effect.
They are not doing that.
Obey's move for staff scrutiny comes at the expense of greater
openness and examination by the public and other lawmakers. That is
from AP.
This is from Roll Call: This year despite promises to run the most
open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no
challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of
earmarks.
It is over and over again. Even the press that normally supports them
is saying they have made a mistake, they have overreached. We don't
need more secrecy in this process. We want things out in the light of
day. If I ask for a earmark, I better be proud of it and to have it
published, and I am. But they don't want to do that. They want to keep
it secret. And then they want to let the staff vet the earmarks, not
even the Members. That is not the way to operate the House of
Representatives.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Johnson from
DeKalb County, spoke just a few minutes ago. I have great respect for
the gentleman from Georgia, a freshman Member doing a great job in this
body. Of course he talked about the underlying bill and what is wrong
with the bill.
Well, I move to strike the last word in support of the amendment. The
gentlelady from Oklahoma, the former lieutenant governor, a long-term
lieutenant governor, I think the first ever in the history of the State
of Oklahoma, female lieutenant governor, I support her amendment. And I
say to the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, there is nothing
wrong with the underlying bill, and possibly he is correct. As the
subcommittee chairman has said, there are no earmarks in this Homeland
Security bill or traditionally in a Homeland Security bill.
But the problem with the bill is it is an increase up to 14 percent
in spending on that particular appropriations bill, 7 percent more than
what is in the President's budget, what the President called for.
So as the gentlewoman from Oklahoma knows with her amendment, it is
just one more opportunity to try to bring, as she is doing, to bring
fiscal responsibility into the process and say some of these programs,
you can pick them apart and name certain ones.

{time} 1615

We have to have that, but pretty soon, we're talking about $60, $70,
$80 billion worth of additional spending that the Democrats are going
to bring on the backs of the American taxpayer at the end of this
fiscal year, and that's what we're railing against. And I would say
that to my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb.
But more than that, Mr. Chairman, much more than that, of course, is
this issue of earmarks. I talked to a good supporter from my district
just recently, in fact this afternoon, and he

[[Page H6379]]

reminded me of the outrage at our own party, at our Republican Party,
and reminded me that we are in the minority because of not being
fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent, losing our brand, if you will,
not fulfilling the pledges upon which we took office, indeed upon which
the President took office 6\1/2\ years ago.
Yes, certainly our party is outraged and we get the message, and
that's why we are determined to bring fiscal responsibility to the
people's House and this issue of earmarks and all of this pork, the
Democrats, the Democratic majority got that majority by railing against
maybe the sins of my colleagues in regard to earmarks.
So this is what really it's all about, not particularly that we're
opposed to this specific appropriations bill on homeland security. And
I think the subcommittee chairman has done a good job, just as the
ranking member has.
But Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. Here is what the Democratic
majority has an opportunity to do. They can take all of these bills,
all of these appropriations bills back to the Rules Committee and bring
them to the floor with a closed rule, something that's unprecedented,
and I don't think that the majority will do that. I hope they won't do
that, but they could.
This is the option I would recommend. I recommended it yesterday when
I spoke on another amendment. Mr. Obey, the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Chairman, has said that he's going to
take all of the earmarks that he plans to airdrop in a conference
report, where none of the Members will have an opportunity to vote up
or down, but he's going to airdrop them, but he is going to shine some
sunshine, some daylight, on that by publishing them before the August
recess in the Congressional Record; and any Member, they will have an
opportunity, maybe over that month, to look at all of those earmarks.
And if they don't like them, they can write a letter to the chairman of
the Appropriations Committee and say, I'm opposed to that particular
Member's earmark.
And then who makes a decision? One person. He's not God. He's just
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he makes a decision,
well, am I going to airdrop those amendments, yes or no?
Well, I want to suggest once again, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Obey,
here is what you can do. All of those earmarks that you publish in that
Congressional Record before the August recess, you can bring those
back.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. GINGREY. Then when we come back from the August recess, he can
bundle those all up as a bill or a resolution coming through the
Appropriations Committee, having a special rule, hopefully an open
rule, bring it to the floor of this House, and then let each and every
Member vote those earmarks up or down. And you can have them sectioned
off for each of the 11 or 12 appropriation bills.
That's the opportunity that we want to give to the new majority, and
I hope the leadership will, in consultation with the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, a member of almost 40 years of this body,
will come to that conclusion, because as one of my colleagues said last
night, we don't want to trade in our voting card for a piece of paper
and a pen so that we can write a letter.
That's taking away the rights of the minority, but even more
importantly, Mr. Chairman, it's taking away the rights of the American
people. It's unfair. It's not the right thing to do.
And I pledge and plead and beg my colleagues in the majority to do
the right thing.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, we come here this afternoon on the eve of one-quarter
of the way through the 110th Congress, and we have to ask ourselves,
what now that the Democrats are in control of this House have they
wrought? Three things: The largest tax increase in America's history on
America's families; secondly, a breaking of the rules and/or their
promises; and finally, what we learned last night, slush funds in very
important appropriations bills.
If you were listening to this discussion last night, some of our
friends on the other side of the aisle, in essence, justified their
actions here today with this legislation by looking back to a couple of
incidents in the past, back in the 1990s or what have you, and said,
well, if it was done in the past, we're going to continue this
tradition in the future.
I think the gentleman from Minnesota raised the point before quite
accurately. Did they not hear the message that the voters of this
country sent in the November election? I can tell you, we heard that
message loud and clear.
The American public is tired of politics as usual. The American
public is tired of the games in Washington. The American public is
tired of changing the rules as you go along just to get your end.
We heard that message, and that is why we came to the floor last
night and today. We are not politicizing this. We are just trying to
protect the American public on important issues such as homeland
security. At the end of the day, we heard. On the other side of the
aisle, we thought the other side of the aisle did.
On these three points, tax increases. I have the opportunity and
honor of serving on the Budget Committee, and I quite honestly was
amazed, after all the hearings that we heard at the beginning of the
year about the fiscal constraints we should be living under and the
problems that we have, and yet we saw the budget that they presented us
at the time of a $392 million tax increase in their original budget
would affect everybody with tax increases.
Increase in the marginal rate of $182 billion; reduction in the child
tax credit of $27 billion; increase in the marriage penalty of $13
billion; increase in the death tax, $91 billion; increase in the
capital gains and dividend tax, $32 billion; other tax increases, $47
billion, all huge numbers. But if you break it right down to the
individual family, you know what it comes out to be? Well, the New York
Times answered that question.
They said the average family of four living in my area in the State
of New Jersey, would see their taxes go up by around $50 or $100 or
more. That's what the other side gave us when they gave us the largest
tax increase in U.S. history.
Breaking of the record, breaking of promises, breaking of the rules.
Well, if you follow what we do here on the floor, you will recall that
it was just about a month ago when the other side of the aisle was
trying to change the rules of the House that had been put in place as
far back as 1820 to allow the minority to have the opportunity to offer
motions to recommit and the like in the manner in which we have done in
the past, as I say, for over 200 years. We fortunately were able to
thwart those moves. We hopefully will be able to thwart their moves now
as they try to break the rules again when it comes to transparencies
and earmarks and the like.
And finally, when it comes to the third point, slush funds, slush
funds? Can you imagine that we're still talking about in this day and
age Members from the other side of the aisle creating an appropriation
process where there are slush funds, where one Member is going to
decide where literally billions and billions of American taxpayers'
dollars go?
These are not just my comments as far as the criticism of the other
side of the aisle. Let's take a look at what outside individuals and
the media are commenting on this.
Public Citizen's Craig Holman said, speaking of what the Democrats
are doing, ``It violates the whole spirit of the reform itself. We
really did expect that earmark requests were going to be an open book
so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who is
requesting what earmark.''
Over on CNN, not a conservative network by any means, CNN's John
Roberts said, ``The question people are asking today is, 'What happened
to the Democrats' promise to shed light on the earmarks?' Because this
plan as announced seems to do the opposite.''
Brianna Keilar, also from CNN, ``Democrats now are on the defense
with Republicans . . . But advocacy

[[Page H6380]]

groups say'' their actions ``still violate the spirit of what Democrats
said they would do when they came into power in January.''
Mr. Chairman, we are not trivializing this. If anything, the other
side of the aisle is trivializing a very important piece of
legislation, Homeland Security, an issue that is extremely important to
my district, inasmuch as we live in the shadows of the Twin Towers.
Let's hear what the American public says and return civility and the
rule of law to the House of Representatives.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, today I rise to commend my colleague from North
Carolina for his leadership on the Homeland Security Appropriations
bill, and I applaud him and members of the subcommittee who helped
craft this bill.
The Homeland Security Appropriations bill is a top priority for the
country, and it should be a top priority for every Member of this body.
Now, let's be clear. This bill protects the American people on Wall
Street and on Main Street, on your street and on my street. We owe it
to the American people to provide the highest levels of safety and
security possible, and this bill does just that. The legislation will
help protect our homes, families and communities from those who would
do us harm.
This bill protects our borders. It fully funds the Customs and Border
Protection Agency and adds 3,000 new Border Patrol agents to secure our
borders.
This bill funds our first responders and provides them with the
critical equipment that they need. It ensures that our own local police
departments have access to the information and intelligence they need
to perform a meaningful role in counterterrorism.
This bill restores the President's cuts to firefighters to ensure
that those who protect our homes, our small businesses, our schools and
our communities have the resources that they now lack to keep us safe.
The bill restores critical interoperability funding that will allow
local police, firefighters and emergency responders to communicate
during a crisis.
This bill protects our airports and our airplanes with baggage
screening funding, and it protects our ships and seaports with funding
for maritime security.
Mr. Chairman, I have my 8-year-old daughter with me this week, and as
we observe the antics from my friends across the aisle, I'm reminded of
a game that my daughter often plays with her friends called
Consequences. Probably each of us has played that game at one time or
another, but not when the stakes are as high as they are in this
Chamber.
Basically what happens is, each child writes down on cards an event
and a consequence of that event. The cards are shuffled and read out
loud in a muddled sequence, with one event leading to consequences that
then make no sense at all. This is not child's play, and Members of the
people's House play the game of Consequences at their peril.
By obstructing this critical bill, they have elevated the politics of
pork over the security of the American people.
Mr. Chairman, Republicans should stop playing the political game of
consequences and join Democrats in focusing on getting things done and
protecting our homeland, because the real consequences of holding up
this bill are serious. That is what the election on November 7, 2006,
was about.
I was elected in the 109th Congress, and I didn't see any of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle leaping to their feet to
demand that their name be published next to the appropriations request
that they submitted. I didn't see anybody leaping to their feet on the
other side of the aisle insisting on reform. Where were the reformers
on the other side of the aisle in the 109th, in the 108th, in the
107th, in the 106th? Where were they?
Now, suddenly, they're leaping to their feet, saying to the American
people that they know what the election on November 7 was about. Why
didn't they do any of this or insist on any of this before now? Because
they didn't believe in it.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding.
There's a simple fact. We had a strong earmark rule in the last
Congress, and we're asking you to reinstate the earmark rule.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Reclaiming my time, if you had one, it was not
evident. It was absent because one of the main reasons that the people
insisted upon putting Democrats in the majority and moving this country
in a new direction is because there was an absence of reform here, an
absence of oversight, an abdication of the Congress' responsibilities.
And that's why Democrats are in charge. That's why we are making sure
that we actually reform the process, put transparency into the
appropriations process, own up to the earmarks that we sponsor and make
sure that people know what we're asking for when we want to bring home
funding to our districts, not do it in the shadows as was the practice
up until the 110th Congress.

{time} 1630

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida.
What she said was factually incorrect. The Republican Congress put in a
strong earmark reform so the American people can see what we are
spending here on this House floor. It's a matter of transparency and
openness which the Democrats campaigned upon. What they have done in
this whole process is put those earmarks back in the shadows, in the
shadows of the chairman's pocket, and the chairman can divvy them up as
he sees fit.
That is not the direction we should be moving in, and we are not
delaying this bill. What we are doing is having a debate on the size
and scope of the government and whether or not we should allow pork-
barrel projects to invade our appropriations process or whether or not
we should have openness and restrain the size and growth of government.
That's what this debate is about, and it's a good debate.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend from Kentucky for
the remainder of my time.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's somewhat ironic. Listening to the words of
the gentlewoman from Florida reminds me of a comment that Machiavelli
made centuries ago. He said: ``For this is the tragedy of man--
circumstances change, but he does not.''
It's fascinating that the Democrats ran on a platform of wanting to
bring about the most ethical Congress ever, but, frankly, I have to say
it's a sham based upon this approach to earmark reform. This is not
earmark reform.
In fact, the reason we were here last night, contrary to the comments
from the other speakers, was to protect the American people and to
protect their right to accountability for every dollar that is spent in
this Chamber. Let's look for a moment on the structure of
accountability before talking about the validity of earmarks.
Last night, when we asked about the ability to debate specific
spending bills, we were told, oh, this is in the guise of transparency,
but, of course, you won't be able to vote on the individual earmarks.
You can only vote after those have been dropped in after the conference
report.
I would have to say this is a most surprising thing. In fact, we were
told, with tremendous sincerity on the part of the gentleman from
Wisconsin, that, in fact, this would be a wonderful way to protect the
people's rights to transparency, and, frankly, wall us completely out
of the process.
How is that? Well, I would be able to object to egregious spending.
We have seen that in a number of areas through the years on both sides
of the aisle. But how would we object to that from my office in
Kentucky? I would be able to write a letter to the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. In fact, the staff members would make the
decision on whether that was a legitimate earmark or not.
I have great respect for the staffs that work at all the committees
in our offices and the House. But I would like to remind the gentleman
from Wisconsin, the Members from the other side of the aisle, that last
November, in

[[Page H6381]]

the election that they claim the American people chose to have a new
direction, I didn't see the name of any staff member from Capitol Hill
on a Federal ballot anywhere in the United States.
The people who were elected to uphold and defend the Constitution,
who were to make sure that the people's money was spent wisely, were
not staff members. The staff members were accountable to elected
officials. Ultimately, the elected officials have to make those
decisions because we are the ones that were accountable to the people.
What will the public know about these earmarks? All they see of them
is at the last minute when we get into a position of simply voting up
or down on a conference report where we will not have that ability to
debate or to discuss those bills.
In fact, let me be clear about this. I don't think earmarks in and of
themselves can be bad. They can be very good, but they should all be
subject to public debate here in this Chamber on this floor or in this
committee where they can be voted on up or down by a majority of
Members clearly making a decision and being accountable for those
decisions.
There are many good earmarks: investing in public works, creating
jobs that can lay a foundation for future growth. The root of this
practice is based on the idea there are many funding priorities very
specific and unique to districts or regions of the country that should
be decided by our elected officials, not some faceless bureaucrat in
Washington, not some person hidden in a cubicle or an office away from
the light of scrutiny and accountability.
To say this is bringing an ethical posture to Congress, I beg to
differ with that. In fact, I believe what it would do is increase the
likelihood of malfeasance on the part of taxpayers' dollars by taking
away the direct accountability with Members of Congress.
In the Fourth District, I don't want a faceless bureaucrat to make
those decisions. In fact, I am proud of every earmark that I have
secured for the Fourth District of Kentucky. I want the people to know
that this is how we believe, working with our local leaders, that
taxpayer dollars should be reinvested in our communities, how their
dollars should be spent that they can see that firsthand and see that
return.
However, the process would be significantly improved if every earmark
were defined in the bill, their sponsors named and that we have the
ability to challenge those and let each Member defend the merits on
return and investment to the American taxpayer on each one of them.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful debate. For about 30 years, I
hung around courtrooms and watched lawyers talk to juries, and a lot of
times lawyers use terminology that people didn't understand.
We just used a ton of terminology, and every once in a while pick up
on one or two that I think that maybe newcomers to this House really
don't understand, maybe someone else that might be in the House or
listening to the House might not understand. I want to talk about some
of those things.
First I would like to address, before I do that, I want to point out
that we have done an awful lot of talk about history. You know, last
year is history.
In fact, yesterday is history. Today is reality and tomorrow, who
knows.
But there was just a tirade of numbers thrown out of Congresses just
a few months ago. If you want to play that game, then let's take the 40
years prior to the Republicans coming into the majority of Congress and
say, what about those 20 Congresses that had the opportunity to reform
the appropriations process?
That's a ridiculous argument. That argument carries no water
whatsoever. The reality of the problem that we are addressing on
earmarks actually came to the forefront when the vast majority of the
people that sit in these chairs, in both parties, were surprised by the
activities of a few who violated their sacred trust to the United
States Government.
We had an election where all of us got painted with the brush of that
few. But the reality is, the vast majority of people on this side of
the aisle, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
were shocked to disbelief over some of the things that occurred with
Members of the Congress, and are continuing to occur, to come to light.
Recently, we had light spread on another shocking event that we have
had here in Congress.
You know, the nature of democracy is that problems leap up in your
face, and you react to those problems. We have had leap into our face
that secretism when dealing with money causes people like Jack Abramoff
to end up in prison, and those that may be associated possibly end up
in prison.
If you look and study what happened, it's all secret things. That's
the real offense we are talking about, when we say let's let daylight
in on this earmark process. A term that we have used a lot is airdrop,
but most people think airdrop, plane, parachute, that drops it in.
What we are really talking about is once a process goes through the
House and the Senate, bills come to a conference committee, which is
made up of representatives of both bodies. It is in a closed room
behind closed doors where the bills are worked out to where they can
get a compromise that both bodies can then vote on.
When we refer to airdrops, these are these expenditures and
appropriation bills that when it comes back to this body, if we can dig
through and find it, we go, where in the heck did that come from? We
can't find any record anywhere of anybody talking about that in the
Senate of the House. There it is. Where did that come from? So it's
like it dropped out of thin air.
I think that's where the term ``airdrop'' gets its meaning. It's that
when the Members of this body and the other body look at the final
product and say where did that come from.
I think the proposal that's being made by the majority on their new
earmark reform, by its very definition, creates a large body. We hear
31,000 possible ``where did that come from'' from for every Member of
this body, except maybe one and some staffers who, some believe, are
more competent than the Members of this body.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Carter) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Carter was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, when we had these scandals, and we had the
debate last term of Congress about this airdropping, this
appropriations process, the public asked us to put what we were doing
under a microscope and then let them see it.
That's what we are doing today. That's what we are going to continue
to do until the whole process is visible and out in the daylight, and
that's what this is all about.
Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Homeland Security
appropriation, and I would just have to say the word ``irony'' has been
used by both sides of the aisle quite a bit. I think the irony here is
that the Republican side of the aisle is trying to do what they did
last year, which is not to pass a budget, not to pass appropriations
and try to bring this country to a halt by delaying, delaying,
delaying.
Well, that's fine and dandy for them to play those kinds of games,
but this country expects a change. It voted for a change in direction.
It voted for strong national security, which this bill reflects and
represents.
This bill reflects and represents protection on our borders,
protection on our ports. We have additions to FEMA so that we have
protection and response to natural disasters. Instead, our friends
would like to stall and hold this Chamber hostage because they can't
get the pork they want. They want their pork, and they want to eat it
too.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is wrong. This stalling tactic has got to
stop. This Nation deserves much better than what we are seeing from the
Republican side of the aisle.
They would like us to ignore the fact that billions of dollars are
missing in Iraq under their administration and under their leadership.
They would like us to forget the fact that there were sweetheart deals
to Halliburton and to many others where there was no bid and no
contracts.
They would like the country to forget history, which has brought this

[[Page H6382]]

country into the biggest debt that we have ever seen. They would rather
talk about earmarks, which they really mean to be pork, because they
aren't going to get their pork. They aren't going to get their bridge
to nowhere because we are not going to let them have that. We will
fight for the American people every day, as long as it takes.
We are here because of guys like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob
Ney, Mark Foley. Those are the individuals that helped create a
Democratic majority because people were tired of it, and they wanted a
change in direction.
We're going to change the focus of this Congress and this Nation from
what the Republicans did, which was the wealthiest 1 percent to the
hardworking people in the middle. We passed a minimum wage law. We
passed bills out of here to reduce the cost of prescription drugs under
Medicare part D. We are focused, ladies and gentlemen, under this bill
on the national security of the United States of America.
Instead, our friends on the other side are focused on pork and their
bridges to nowhere.
This is a travesty; this is a delaying tactic. This is not in the
interests of the United States of America. I support this bill and ask
for an ``aye'' vote.
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Before I speak, I would like to just share one thing. The gentleman
who was just speaking reminds me again of the comment that Machiavelli
made that the tragedy of man is that circumstances change, but he does
not.
And in all of this rhetoric, I would remind the gentleman we were
actually debating a Homeland Security bill, I haven't heard one person
answer our reasoned arguments to ask them to defend the appropriations
chairmen or the Speaker's approach to earmarks by taking them off the
floor and out of committee and removing them from debate and
accountability.
I happened to be in the meetings last year where the Republican
conference was at work to move to improve the accountability.
Certainly, I believe in complete transparency of records, and we have
heard nobody defend the chairman's position on this.
I have heard no Democrat get up and defend the chairman's position on
earmarks at all. They want to use ad hominem arguments, talk about
yesterday. I think the gentleman is right: what happened yesterday, in
fact, is history.
So far, to make this the most ethical House in history, I would think
that openness and transparency would improve accountability, and not
simply contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.

{time} 1645

We talk a lot about that, but I think that a lot has been created
inadvertently from the other side.
The issue is not whether earmarks themselves, it's not whether
earmarks themselves are good or bad. It's simply having a mechanism for
accountability for the American people so that they can see that.
One perfect example is a large project of national and regional
significance that's in my district that affects 71 congressional
districts. We worked together in a bipartisan manner through the 109th
Congress to secure all of the funding necessary to the lead-up to the
construction of the Brent Spence bridge on I-75 that connects Northern
Kentucky and Cincinnati. This was not a Republican or Democrat project,
it was an American project where many, many Members, ranging from south
Florida, all the way to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, up into the
Northeast saw their districts, their industries, their jobs affected by
that meaningful investment in infrastructure that would benefit the
Nation as a whole.
We wanted that accountability. We debated it in public. We talked
about it repeatedly. We made the case not only to one another in the
House, but to the American people, that there would be a return on
investment.
And I think, at the end of the day, that's the real key. Projects
like that are not bridges to nowhere. Projects like that in the full
disclosure of the light of day show a proper stewardship of the tax
resources of the American people that are given to us to spend. But to
take it away and not answer the fundamental question, to say that these
are tactics to stall for pork, I would respectfully disagree with the
comments that have been made, because nobody has defended the
fundamental question that accountability, in fact, has been taken away
and removed.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stated on March 17, 2006 that
``before Members vote on the bill, there should be an appropriate time
for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record.
And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that
transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there.''
Unfortunately, moving to a concept of omnibus bills or dropping them
in at the conference where there's not that room for debate or
discussion, I think it creates opportunities that, I won't go so far as
to suggest that there's an issue with integrity, but more importantly,
as a businessman, as somebody who was a consultant helping companies to
maximize their investments, their productivity, to keep their jobs and
to grow, there's a greater risk of redundancy. There's a greater risk
of waste. There's a greater risk of less efficient ways to go about
solving the problem in a particular region.
The benefit of debate and the benefit of dialogue is to give us a
synergy that, at the end of the day, will give us results that will
benefit the American people. And I think that we've been trusted with
the people's money.
This legislation, today, the structure and the reason that we have
been put into a position where we have to exercise process to force
this debate, is no different than what happened a month ago when a
germaneness rule, where the minority had the opportunity to offer
alternative opinions that had been in place since 1822; folks who
stated that they were respecters of the institution moved to strike
that rule, and we were simply informed an hour before it was going to
go into effect, and we exercised our rights through procedure to remove
all unanimous consent and to move to a place where this had to be
brought into the light of day because of the opportunities that were
given for Members before.
At the end of the day, that was wisely repealed that there could be
some degree of comity and debate. In this same vein now, I think it's
important that, rather than returning to the politics of yesteryear, of
a bygone era, I think what we need to do is move forward in a spirit of
openness.
We live in an information world that's interconnected and open and
gives access. Let's give the people access to all the earmarks. Give it
to them early. Let Members on both sides of the aisle stand by their
projects, justify them to the American people.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Davis of Kentucky was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. And with that, at the end of the day, what we
come up with is not a majority or minority solution, not a Democrat or
Republican or liberal or conservative solution. We come up with an
American solution that optimizes the resources that we are entrusted
with by the American people.
Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
Mr. Chairman, it's been 5 years since the Department of Homeland
Security was established. November's election demonstrated that the
Nation agreed with the Democrats' new direction for America.
In the movie A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise asked Jack Nicholson for the
truth. Nicholson's response: You can't handle the truth.
Mr. Chairman, can the minority handle the truth? I submit to you
today that the minority cannot, in fact, handle the truth. Mr.
Chairman, the truth is that the minority can hear the heart of the
American people no more than they could before November.
Truth is, Mr. Obey has made this process way more transparent than it
was under the minority's watch. The truth is, we have much more of an
efficient process. Most importantly, the truth is that there are no
earmarks in this bill that we're debating here today.
The appropriations measure has been on the floor for 12 hours and
still

[[Page H6383]]

counting. Eight motions for the committee to rise later, the minority
continues to stifle progress, the minority continues to foster trivial
debate to defer and deter us from our mission.
Perhaps the minority's not in touch with the interests of our Nation.
The Nation is interested in leadership that remembers not to forget.
The Nation is looking for leadership that remembers 9/11, leadership
that remembers Katrina, leadership that realizes that there are still
vulnerabilities that we need to address to prevent the next terrorist
attack or natural disaster.
Chairman Price has showed leadership by addressing these issues in
this bill, as my committee addressed in H.R. 1, 1401 and 1684.
We owe Department employees, we owe the Department's management, and
we owe our great country the passage of this appropriations measure.
Mr. Chairman, I invite my colleagues in the majority to join me as
chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in passing a measure
that brings us one step closer to protecting this Nation.
Homeland security is not a partisan issue. Mr. Chairman, it's an
American issue. If we agree on that, then let's end this obstruction
and pass this bill.
Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to just say that American ingenuity and civic
involvement have come forward again. The American people are a creative
and involved people. And I have here a letter from a blog site called
porkbusters.org; let me just read you a couple of sentences from this
blog site.
``As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and
easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your
32,000 earmark request publicly, I, and other taxpayers across the
country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which
Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their
earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of Federal
funding, and which may have value to the taxpayers.
``Thanks for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my
fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these
32,000 earmark requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for
these requested projects; the least we can do is help you evaluate
their merit.''
We have volunteers now coming forward that are willing to help the
overworked staff on appropriations that apparently do not have the time
to look at these earmarks, and haven't had time over the last several
months. Although we've had time for a lot of other things to do, but we
haven't had time for that. So volunteers are now coming forward, and
the American people are standing ready and they will be willing to
help.
And on another note, I would just like to give a question to the
colleagues I have on the other side of the aisle. I hear a lot of
discussion about what's in the bill. And the bill has many good things.
No one's denying that. There are some problems with the bill. The bill
has some really good projects in it.
But why not talk about the earmark process that amounts to doing it
in secret, that amounts to doing earmarks in the month of August when
we're out of session, when we can't debate it, when it's going to be
done in conference committee? We will not have a chance to vote one by
one on these earmarks.
And you know that, generally speaking, past history is that the
earmarks will be passed. Even when they're challenged, even when
they're brought into the sunshine. They will, generally speaking, be
passed. So really what do you have to be afraid of? They're probably
going to pass anyway, unfortunately, even the most egregious ones. So
you really have nothing to fear, and you really don't need to hide
them, but you're doing so anyway, and I think that that's wrong.
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. I thank the gentlelady, and I'll consume
just a portion of the time.
First off, to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle asking
what truth is, and he went through a litany of truths, I ask, are his
truths the same truths as America's truths when it comes to what is
occurring here?
And as the gentleman behind me from Michigan, who is often quoting
lyrics of music from Jesus Christ Superstar, are truths not unchanging
law? And in this case, I would suggest that they are. Your laws are
constantly being changed, or I should say your rules are constantly
being broken that you implement and that you promise. So your truths
are simply truths based upon laws that have been rules that you decide
in November you're going to promise and then later on break.
As I've said each time that I come to this floor, what has this
Congress under the Democrat leadership brought us? The largest tax
increase in U.S. history; a breaking of the rules, so that now we see
that they can change their definition of truths; and as we learned last
night, surpluses, or rather, hidden fees and funds within these
accounts as well.
But the point that I wanted to make at this point is to a point that
the chairman raised last night, and that is to the difficulty of
actually trying to address these earmarks. He said that they would rely
upon the staff of his committee to effectuate this.
While I think we all take our hats off and commend the work of his
committee. The staffers for the Appropriations Committee are probably
some of the best and the brightest that this House has. These Members
of the Appropriations Committee are also the same Members who
appropriate their own salaries, for that matter. That committee is
charged with the responsibility of bringing these facts not only to the
House, but to the American public as well.
If the truth is that they are unable to perform their job, perhaps
they can look outside this Chamber for assistance. I have a letter here
of an organization, a good government organization, that made such an
offer. Tim Phillips from Americans for Prosperity indicated to Chairman
Obey just a week ago, realizing what he had heard as well from Chairman
Obey that he is having difficulty, as he said, the extra time ``to
evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests that have been submitted to
the Appropriations Committee this year.''
The chairman says, I think we have a hell of a lot more ability than
the individual working alone to do it, referencing the staff.
Well, Mr. Phillips, of American Prosperity came up with, I think, an
appropriate manner or way to address these problems, if his committee
and his staff and himself are not able to get this job done on time as
the American public wants him to. May I read from the letter which
says, ``I think that the thousands, the millions of individual
taxpayers, working together, could greatly aid you in completing your
earmark request evaluation before you resort to sticking earmarks into
unamendable final legislation behind the closed doors of a conference
committee. That's why, on behalf of thousands of Americans for
Prosperity members from coast to coast, I'm writing to offer our help
to you and your staff in evaluating this year's earmark request.''
You know, it's interesting. The chairman said last night that it
would take literally weeks, if not months, to get the job done if they
were to start right now. I think we have to ask the question, why are
we even considering them starting right now? Why haven't they started
weeks ago on this matter?
Let me get back to the letter. ``As you know, Internet technology has
made research faster and easier than at any previous time in history.''
This is the crux of the argument. ``By releasing your 36,000 earmark
requests to Americans for Prosperity, our allies and other taxpayer
groups, and to concerned citizens around the country, we will be able
to unleash taxpayers across the country in a cooperative effort to
determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts
attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be
unworthy of Federal funding and which may be of value to the
taxpayer.''
He thanks him for the consideration, the members of Americans for
Prosperity, millions of taxpayers who stand ready to help to evaluate
those 36,000 earmark requests because, after all, it

[[Page H6384]]

is those millions of American taxpayers, they're the ones, at the end
of the day, who are going to be responsible for paying for those
requests.
The least that we can do in this House is, if the chairman and his
committee and his side of the aisle cannot get the job done, the least
we can do is turn over that responsibility and seek the assistance of
the American taxpayer.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.

{time} 1700

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

Office of the Under Secretary for Management

For necessary expenses of the Office of the Under Secretary
for Management, as authorized by sections 701 through 705 of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 341 through 345),
$237,765,000, of which not to exceed $3,000 shall be for
official reception and representation expenses: Provided,
That of the total amount provided, $6,000,000 shall remain
available until expended solely for the alteration and
improvement of facilities, tenant improvements, and
relocation costs to consolidate Department headquarters
operations and $300,000 shall remain available until expended
by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Accreditation Board
for the needs of Federal law enforcement agencies
participating in training accreditation: Provided further,
That no funding provided under this heading may be used to
design, build, or relocate any Departmental activity to the
Saint Elizabeths campus until the Department submits to the
Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of
Representatives: (1) the published U-Visa rule, and (2) a
detailed expenditure plan for checkpoint support and
explosive detection systems refurbishment, procurement, and
installations on an airport-by-airport basis for fiscal year
2008.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mrs. Drake

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mrs. Drake:
Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,400,000)''.
Page 17, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $9,100,000)''.

Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I introduce an amendment today to highlight
the importance of State and local law enforcement participation in
immigration enforcement.
The intent of this amendment is to fully fund the President's budget
request of $26.4 million for State and local law enforcement support
for the training and support for the voluntary participation of local
law enforcement officers and immigration law enforcement as authorized
under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This program is designed to enhance cooperation and communication
between Federal, State, and local law enforcement in identifying and
removing criminal illegal aliens. Under 287(g), ICE provides State and
local law enforcement with the training and authorization to identify;
process; and, when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they
encounter during their regular daily law enforcement activity.
It is very important to note that the 287(g) program is not used for
rounding up illegal aliens in random street operations. This program is
targeted specifically for those individuals who pose a significant
threat to public safety and national security. Additionally, the 287(g)
program is not used to determine the legal status of witnesses and
victims of crime. Officers in the 287(g) program are trained to respect
the status of witnesses and victims involved in a criminal case in
order to ensure the integrity of our criminal justice system.
Currently, the 287(g) program is implemented in 13 jurisdictions.
Perhaps the jurisdiction with the greatest success in this program is
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. In just 12 months, Sheriff Jim
Pendergraph has been able to identify and deport nearly 1,900 criminal
illegal aliens, most of whom had been previously ordered deported by an
immigration judge. This program is working and the demand for
participation among the States is increasing.
And in the report accompanying this appropriations bill, the
committee has acknowledged the importance of identifying criminal
illegal aliens while incarcerated in our State and local jails.
Participation in the 287(g) program can rectify that problem.
Immigration enforcement is clearly a Federal responsibility. It is
the Federal Government's primary duty to ensure the safety and security
of its citizens. But we cannot do it alone. We need the assistance of
our State and local law enforcement who encounter these issues on a
daily basis.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I wish, Mr. Chairman, to offer some comments on this amendment.
The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia would reduce
the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management
Account by $10.4 million and reallocate $9.1 million of the funds to
the ICE 287(g) program. Because of the differences in outlays, the
remaining $1.3 million cannot be used.
Now, as we have said on this floor many times in the last 18 hours of
debate, our Republican friends seem determined to trash the front
offices at the Department of Homeland Security. They rail against
bureaucrats. They have no regard for the President's requests for those
front offices. The fact is that the Under Secretary for Management
funding is critical for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure
that it develops its new headquarters in a consolidated way and that it
does its job.
But if our friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not going
to defend their own administration's needs in this regard, let alone
their budget requests, I and my colleagues here are not inclined to do
so. So our colleagues will need to look at this amendment and maybe
they will want to support it, the source of funding notwithstanding.
Let me say something about the recipient of these funds, the 287(g)
program. Now, the ICE 287(g) program does require additional funding
next year, and it requires additional funding because of the emphasis
that we are placing in our bill on the necessity of ICE's getting
serious about preventing the release of prisoners, people who have
committed serious crimes, who are deportable, permitting the release of
those people back out on the streets. It is just outrageous that
criminals who have been convicted, who have committed serious crimes in
this country are being put out on the street without their status even
being checked.
So we do have in this bill a requirement for ICE to contact every
prison, jail, and correctional facility in this country on a monthly
basis to identify removable criminal aliens. And we have provided a
good deal of additional 287(g) funding to enroll correctional
facilities in this program and to provide training and technical
support to participants so they can provide accurate and actionable
data to ICE agents.
So we have tripled ICE's funding. We have tripled ICE's funding. We
have more than tripled the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007, that
was $5.4 million, to $17.3 million in fiscal year 2008. Now, we think
that is sufficient to enable ICE to undertake these duties as well as
to carry on its existing functions because, first of all, it is a
tripling in funding. Secondly, the Department has yet to obligate more
than half of a $50 million appropriation made in 2006 for this program.
It has not yet been obligated.
I have to say to my colleagues that as far as the 287(g) program is
concerned, the availability of funding is not the issue. Trying to
increase participation rates is the issue. But it is not just a matter
of throwing money at the problem, as our friends like to say.
So ICE is going to take on, we hope and believe, significant new
responsibilities. We have provided funding to accomplish that, and we
are also, of course, assuming that the Department is going to obligate
that $50 million that is sitting there already.

[[Page H6385]]

Now, our colleague has offered an amendment to provide yet more
funding for ICE, funding that it is not clear to me that she has really
analyzed how and when the funding can be used. But if she wishes to
take yet another bite out of her own administration's front office
accounts at Homeland Security, then, again, she can be our guest.
I do want my colleagues to know, though, that we are serious about
this prison program. We think of all the priorities in terms of
deportation, this is at the top of the list. It is a major feature of
our bill. ICE is going to be directed to undertake this as a top
priority. We know it will require funding. We have provided the
funding, and perhaps in the best of all worlds this additional funding
contained in this amendment would help this function be performed even
more effectively. That would be a positive way to look at it, and for
that reason we will not be opposing the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I
have some concerns about the offset, but I believe this amendment will
help restore balance to ICE's enforcement resources as well as the
agency's support for State and local officials. As I said when we
opened this debate, I believe a fiscally responsible funding level
includes sufficient resources to carry out all legislative functions
and directions.
This amendment helps to restore some balance of resources to meet the
bill's mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility across
the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify
incarcerated aliens that can be deported and to initiate those
deportation proceedings. That mandate is a lofty goal. Over 5,000 local
and State jails and detention facilities that you have got to contact
monthly and talk to the jailers who are State or local officials and
are not being paid to help you with this, it is an unfunded mandate,
and who are also not qualified to judge whether or not a person that is
incarcerated is an illegal alien. It is not their job, and they are not
trained for it. So that is going to be a difficult goal to implement
and one that is unfunded but, I think, worthwhile.
So I remain concerned that the bill presupposes that ICE can simply
redirect resources from some other vital criminal investigation or
fugitive operation to meet this unfunded mandate. I mean, ICE is
understaffed as it is with personnel out there. You take a lot of
personnel off of what they are doing now to check with every jail in
the country, 2,000 of which hardly have any incarcerated aliens in them
anyway, and you have got to take that personnel off of fugitive
operations, catching people who are not in jail who are rapists and
murderers and thieves, and deport them.
So the bottom line is we have got to have some more money for ICE to
do this new chore. In fact, the bill even suggests resources can be
drawn from the 287(g) program to meet this mandate. But then the bill
reduces funding for that very program by almost 30 percent below the
request.
So restoring the $9.1 million cut in the 287(g) program will provide
additional funds to help State and local correctional facilities at the
ID and processing of illegal aliens, the very priority the bill is
trying to force. In fact, over 40 percent of the local law enforcement
officers trained to date through the 287(g) program are from jails and
correctional facilities in States like Florida, Arizona, Alabama, North
Carolina, California.
Look at some of the notable results from the ICE's 287(g) program.

{time} 1715

I am quoting from the Nashville City Paper printed April 24. ``If the
first week's worth of figures hold up, the number of illegal immigrants
deported in the first year of the national 287(g) program would be more
than 4,200, or equal to 11 percent of Nashville's total, legal and
illegal, Hispanic population, according to a City Paper analysis of the
first batch of 287(g) immigration enforcement data.''
Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program is too vital a program
in the fight to secure our borders to accept the bill's $9.1 million
cut.
I urge Members to support the Drake amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman
of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, we have learned from the recent devastation of
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as Tropical Storm Allison,
which devastated my city of Houston in 2001, that severe consequences
can result from not having the proper hurricane preparedness plans and
outreach efforts in place prior to such a disaster.
In my own district in Houston, and in New Orleans, and in communities
throughout America, we have personally seen firsthand that minorities,
the elderly, the disabled and impoverished populations have not been
adequately prepared for the upcoming hurricane seasons or, in fact,
hurricane seasons in the past.
I am particularly dismayed that these vulnerable populations have not
been targeted by outreach efforts communicating the need to prepare for
a major hurricane or other natural disaster. Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita struck some of America's most vulnerable and disadvantaged
communities. Even rural communities have suffered from the lack of
focus on emergency preparedness, communities which are just now
beginning to find their feet again after these devastating storms.
National, State and local governments have not fulfilled their
responsibility to ensure that they are not, once again, left to face
nature's wrath alone. My colleague from Minnesota, Representative Jim
Ramstad, has stated that the disaster in the gulf coast region exposed
the enormous gaps in the emergency planning preparedness and management
for people with disabilities. We desperately need to fill these gaps.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 2638, the
Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2008, that would have provided
an additional $5 million to FEMA to support emergency preparedness
outreach and program efforts for vulnerable communities, including
racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly,
and the economically disadvantaged.
However, money does not answer all questions, and I would be willing
to forgo offering my amendment if the chairman would be willing to work
with me to ensure that FEMA makes specific efforts to engage those most
vulnerable members of our communities in programs that would involve
the necessary preparedness, education, training and awareness that is
necessary to prepare our communities.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlelady from Texas for
raising this important issue. I will be happy to work with you on it. I
want to thank you for your leadership on the issue. I agree with you,
as the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that much more
must be done to engage our communities about the need to be prepared
for all types of disasters and that special efforts are required to
engage the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a very
valuable focus that you brought to this.
So that's why we fund FEMA's management and administration account at
$685 million, $150 million above the current fiscal year. FEMA has told
us of its plans to engage in this type of preparedness effort. We
intend to monitor that. We strongly support it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
I am aware of dedicated community activists that have stepped forward
to fill the void left by Federal, State and local governments.
Currently, FEMA's national preparedness director only has an acting
deputy administrator rather than the permanent leadership this office
requires. Further, this administrator testified before our Homeland
Security Subcommittee that our national strategy for citizen
preparedness must be rooted in strong local efforts to integrate
citizens and communities, and requires locally or regionally developed
plans to address each community's unique risk and capabilities.
He also testified to the need for utilizing volunteer services, since
there are not enough emergency responders to take care of everyone in
every location during the most critical time.

[[Page H6386]]

I understand the chairman believes there are funds available in the
legislation for FEMA to reach out to these State and local activists
and groups to provide them with the resources that they need to
continue their vitally important work, and to work to ensure that the
absolute debacle that we saw 2 years ago before, during, and after
Hurricane Katrina is never allowed to happen again. One such activist
is Mr. Charles X. White, who has worked tirelessly to provide much-
needed resources for Houston's vulnerable communities.
In light of predictions of a devastating hurricane season this year,
we must take action to ensure that those who are reaching neglected
segments of our American population are adequately funded, including
these vulnerable populations, racial, ethnic, disabled, elderly and
others.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on report language
as this bill goes forward, to ensure that hurricane preparedness
outreach to vulnerable communities is a priority for FEMA.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman. I will be happy
to work with her on report language.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairman for his
work on this legislation, this appropriations bill. And I thank you on
behalf of the vulnerable communities across America who may be facing a
tough hurricane or man-made disaster season.
We need FEMA to focus their attention. I thank the gentleman for his
work and his support.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady of Virginia,
and also in support of the 287(g) program.
I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning our program in
Nashville, Tennessee, and talking a little bit about that. He gave us
some information about why this program works. I would like to expand
on that for just a couple of minutes, and then I'm going to yield to
the gentleman from Virginia for a couple of minutes of remarks.
The program in Nashville, the 287(g) program there, is working. We
understand that it yields results. You heard about the first week's
results from this program.
Now, the reason we need to put our money where our mouth is and the
reason the funding needs to support the language in the bill is because
this is a program that saves local governments money. And it works. And
there is a waiting list to get into this program.
Now, a follow-up on the comments that the ranking member made from
the June 10 issue of the Nashville Tennesseean. Fifteen deputies from
the Davidson County department underwent training, and now they check
the immigration status of every foreign-born person that is booked to
that jail.
Also, they have 213 inmates that were held on immigration orders
during the program's first 45 days. It is a sharp increase from the 151
metro jail prisoners subjected to immigration holds in the year of
2006. This is paying for itself. It is getting results. That is why
this program deserves to be fully funded.
At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor) for his 2 minutes of remarks.
Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentlelady. And I want to commend the
committee for bringing this bill forward, but really take some
difference in the remarks that were made regarding the gentlelady from
Virginia's amendment on the 287(g) program. I couldn't think of
anything that would be more effective in helping us enforce the law in
the interior of this country than additional funds for this program.
As some of the speakers prior to me have said, we need all hands on
deck as far as the criminal population that has made its way into this
country. We need the ability to go after these criminals, in the words
of the gentleman from Kentucky, these rapists, these murderers and
these thieves. And there is no more effective way to identify them than
to empower the folks, the first responders that are on the ground in
our communities across this country.
Now, some of the words from the gentleman of North Carolina, the
chairman of the subcommittee, were that, in fact, we have too much
money in this program and it hasn't been used, and, in fact, they are
unobligated funds. Well, then I would say to the gentleman and to my
colleagues that we haven't done our job, because we have got to do our
job to put the vision out there that we intend to get serious about the
illegal immigration population, especially those that are criminals in
this country.
The American people expect us to enforce the law. This vehicle allows
the Federal Government to step up to the plate to provide local law
enforcement and our agencies at home the necessary resources and the
tools with which to identify and apprehend the illegal population that
has run afoul of our law in the interior of this country.
Not more than a month ago we saw the individuals in New Jersey; we
saw them apprehended, planning a terrorist attack on Fort Dix in that
State. Later, we come to find out that those individuals had had
various run-ins with the law, and in fact, combined, 75 times had been
involved with some type of either traffic violation or other criminal
interdiction, but yet these individuals were never identified as being
illegal.
We have got to make sure that that scenario is not repeated. We have
got to empower the most powerful force we've got, which is that on the
grounds and in our local community.
So I would urge my colleagues to join the gentlelady from Virginia
Beach in making sure that we adequately fund this program and insist
that our local law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools and
the resources that they need to assist in enforcing the law.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And to
both Members, there are just a few thousand ICE agents, but there are
literally hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officials.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Blackburn was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. If 287(g) would provide the training and the
authority for the local law enforcement to do just as the gentleman has
said, think of the law enforcement power that can be brought to bear on
the severe problem the country faces of getting rid of convicts in the
penitentiaries, as well as fugitives on the run and on the lam, and
raping and plundering and robbing in the country. I think it's as
simple as ABC. I don't know why we don't do more of it.
I thank the gentlelady.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, precisely, there are 13 jurisdictions
that have this program. It works. We need this Nation right. The cop on
the beat needs the information to get to these criminals that are on
our streets.
Let's fully fund the 287(g). We're looking at $36.3 billion. There is
money to do this right and be a good steward of our taxpayers' money.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
I rise on this issue with just some concern here that we don't lose
perspective of what we're really trying to accomplish.
This was an issue brought up in the committee, probably the most
popular issue of all, which was that we wanted ICE, which is the second
largest law enforcement agency in the country next to the FBI, at the
rate it's growing, it's going to be bigger than the FBI, we wanted them
to do their job of being able to determine whether people who had been
arrested at the local level and were in jail, maybe not yet sentenced,
but were pending trial or were being held, that somebody would review
their legal status.
The question is that this program that we are debating and wanting to
put more money into, and frankly, the committee doubled the amount of
money that's going into it, which is a grant program to local
governments, not all local governments are keen on wanting to do this.
Why? Because they

[[Page H6387]]

have emphasized what they call ``community policing.''
They want the local law enforcement officer to be a friend of the
community in order to be involved with the community, to have
communities trust them. And if they think that the local law
enforcement is also the Border Patrol, they are going to shut up and
stop talking to cops. And you get all kinds of issues with this,
particularly when it comes to children who are afraid of law
enforcement, and so on, if they are the ones that are going to arrest
their moms and dads.
So, let's put this into some perspective. What we really need to do
is make sure that the ICE, the Federal law enforcement, does their job.
Why? Because they are trained.
I have a note here from my sheriff saying that the ICE comes to our
jails in Monterey County, a small rural county in California, three
times a week. He said the number of confirmed, undocumented prison
inmates varies. Last quarter, there were 52 identified undocumented
inmates in Monterey County. The previous quarter there were also 52;
prior to that, 72.
Some of the inmates claim citizenship status or legal permanent
residency and don't have their documentation order. It takes some time
to label them and do all that legal background work.

{time} 1730

That is not what the legal background work is. We have that
information. That is Federal information.
As we pointed out before, we have no national ID. None of you in here
can prove you are an American citizens by any card you carry in your
wallet, unless you want to show your voting card, but they won't accept
that in the airport so I don't know what valid status that has.
The point here is, let's not stop making ICE do their job. They
should be doing these local jail checks. If you want to do additional
training for local jailers, that is fine. That is what this program is
about. But don't substitute it so the local government has to do it,
because I think you ought to believe that criminal management up to
your local elected officials, your sheriffs and your police chiefs, to
make that decision.
This is the second largest police force in the United States. It
ought to be doing jail checks. They are the ones that have the
qualifications to look into the Federal Information Bank to see whether
these people are properly documented, and I think we ought to make sure
that they do their job.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the
gentleman is absolutely right. We have to separate what ICE does from
local law enforcement. This is trying to backdoor immigration reform.
We really need, not piecemeal immigration reform, if we are going to do
it.
ICE, in relation with the jails, that works. Make sure the
incarcerated criminals are tracked in the right direction. But to go
into neighborhoods using local law enforcement that is now using ICE
money to train them really, I think, undermines the law enforcement
system in that community, and law-abiding citizens who would be willing
to help solve a crime are now being victimized.
If we are going to do immigration reform, let's do it. Let's do it in
the right way. But let's not manipulate local law enforcement, who in
fact have made official statements on the record that they would prefer
not to be engaged in Federal immigration work.
So I thank the gentleman for the point that he has made, and I hope
that this body will get down at some point to a reasonable and rational
response to the problems of the immigration system.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment has been
accepted. I am just concerned that we still need to put pressure on ICE
to do the real jail checks.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, when I talk to my local sheriffs back home, one of whom
actually burned out the battery on my cell phone, what they want to do
is do what people expect them to do, and that is help the very
overtaxed, no pun intended, ICE employees who are out there trying to
apprehend the criminals, the criminal illegal aliens.
In Florida, we were able to train 35 State and local law enforcement
people under this program, under the 287(g) program. It is a good
program, and, believe me, it is very much wanted by many local
sheriffs, sheriffs who also get elected like we do and who get
frustrated when ICE is unable to come to the jail with the frequency
that they need to, who are frustrated because the citizens want
illegals who have criminal records, they want them off the streets, off
their lawns, and they want to once again be able to reclaim their
communities, very often, from a lot of illegal activity.
The 13 jurisdictions that use the 287(g) program are very happy with
it. We need to adequately fund it, and I commend my colleague from
Virginia for introducing this amendment. It is a good amendment and one
that I think the American people certainly would want to have well-
funded because of its efficacy.
Again, I commend the gentlewoman.
Mr. POE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in my other life, before coming to Congress, I spent 22
years on the criminal court bench in Houston, Texas, trying all kinds
of criminals. During that experience, I learned a lot about the way the
world really is.
It is unfortunate that, in the society we live in, the Immigration
Service cannot protect the United States as far as interior enforcement
goes. There aren't enough interior enforcement agents to track down
people who are illegally in the system. When I say ``in the system,'' I
am talking about the criminal justice system.
What happens too often is a person is arrested for a crime. He is put
in jail. The person is illegally in the United States, but nobody knows
about that. They are sentenced to some term in jail or in prison. They
get out, and they continue to stay in the United States illegally. That
continues to be a problem, especially in big jurisdictions like
Houston, Texas, where I am from.
They are committing more crimes, yes. The last three peace officers
in the City of Houston that have been shot, Mr. Speaker, were all shot
by people illegally in the United States. Two of those individuals had
been arrested several times and yet kept being released. The problem
breaks down in the local jails.
It needs to be clear that this program, the 287(g) program that is
being funded and that we are asking more funds to be appropriated for,
is voluntary. Cities are not required to participate.
Sanctuary cities, and we know what cities they are, that harbor
illegals, they won't participate. They don't have to participate. But
not all cities in the United States are sanctuary cities.
Some cities want to help clean up the crime problem in their
neighborhoods. One way they can do it is to receive Federal funds,
going to local law enforcement, who know best about policing and who
the people are in the area and what criminals they are; to track those
individuals illegally in the country and make sure they are legally
deported back where they came from. We find that it works, and it works
very well.
For example, in local jails, sheriffs use the 287(g) program to find
out who foreign gang members are, like the MS-13 gang members. Once
they are in custody, they can determine who those individuals are, that
they are illegally in the United States, and, as soon as they are
released from jail, which happens to all of them, rather than be
released back on the streets of our cities, they will be deported back
where they came from.
Now that doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. We have ``catch
and release'' of illegals in our county jail system. Then we got to go
catch them again and then try to have them deported after some crime is
committed.
So I think it is wise to use the 750,000 local peace officers in the
United States, those peace officers that want to participate in the
287(g) program, train them with Federal funds and allow them to police
their own jails and their neighborhoods so that people who are
convicted of criminal conduct,

[[Page H6388]]

that are illegally in the United States, once they are captured, we can
deport them rather than continue to release them back on our streets.
So I want to commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for proposing this
important amendment asking for more funds for local law enforcement to
do their job. Obviously, the Federal Government cannot, has not done
its job in protecting interior enforcement, and I think it is a wise
use of money to allow local law enforcement to do so.
Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to fully fund ICE's
request of $26.4 million for its 287(g) program. Let's just get down to
sort of the cop's nitty gritty here.
Just 2\1/2\ years ago, I left the King County Sheriff's Office as the
sheriff in Seattle, Washington, an 1,100-employee organization with a
$110 million budget. I started in 1972 as a 21-year-old police officer
in a patrol car for about 5 years. I worked in the jail, and I worked
as a property crimes detective, and for the most part of my career, I
was a homicide investigator. I worked with all kinds of communities.
All the different diverse communities that we serve across this
Nation exist in King County, Seattle, Washington. I understand the
theory of the Community Oriented Policing program. We implemented that
program in the King County Sheriff's Office. It is one of those
programs that really comes natural to a police officer working on the
streets in their patrol car. They want to connect with their community.
They want to be friends with their community, as mentioned earlier by
my colleague across the aisle.
Part of the Community Oriented Policing program is to make friends
and engage in conversation and build relationships, but it is also our
job as law enforcement officers, local law enforcement officers across
this Nation, to enforce the law. Sometimes we make friends doing that.
We save lives doing that. But sometimes we make enemies.
In the process of making friends and making enemies and protecting
our neighborhoods, we also build partnerships with those communities,
but we also build partnerships beyond that. We build partnerships with
the Federal Government. We build partnerships with the FBI, with the
U.S. Attorney's Office, with DEA, with ICE, with Border Patrol. I could
go on and on and on with the Federal agencies that join in concert, in
partnership, with local law enforcement every day.
In Federal task force organizations, like the Joint Analytical
Centers, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the HIDTA, High Intensity
Drug Trafficking Areas, the Violent Offenders Task Force, the VICAP
Program, and I could go on and on and on with Federal agencies and
Federal programs and Federal task forces that come together; it is
about partnerships between local law enforcement and Federal law
enforcement. And it is about training, joint training, with each of
these agencies so that we can get our job done, that we can protect
this country.
I understand that. I worked as a partner with the Federal agencies
when I wore a police uniform on the street. I worked with as a partner
with Federal agencies as I wore my suit and tie and my uniform as the
sheriff for 8 years in King County. These partnerships are essential.
They create a seamless web, a seamless web of sharing information
across all spectrums of the Federal, local, State law enforcement.
There is no undermining of the local police department when
partnerships are created with the Federal Government. It is an
uplifting and exciting experience to work with all of these agencies
and train together to finally learn what each one of us does and what
we can bring to the table as a team as we protect our country.
So Homeland Security now, as a fairly new agency with 22 departments,
is another one of those agencies that we have to work with, and ICE is
one of those.
This training program creates an understanding. It helps police
officers understand and respect civil liberties. It helps police
officers understand and respect civil rights. It helps police officers
at the local level in training with the Federal Government understand
and respect the diverse communities that we serve. Why would we not
want to have our local police officers participate in training that
helps give us a broader understanding of the diverse community we
serve?
It makes no sense to me to be against increasing this budget to what
ICE has asked for. It makes no sense at all. If we are truly interested
in civil liberty, civil rights and respecting each other's diversity,
we would want this training.
Let's make a point clear: This is voluntary. This isn't mandated by
the government. Every police department and Sheriff's office across the
country can volunteer for this program.
So, Mr. Chairman, this is a great program. I commend the gentlewoman
from Virginia for bringing this forward. I fully support this
amendment, and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote in favor of it.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Has the gentleman from Texas spoken on this
amendment yet?
Mr. CARTER. No, I haven't.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that I follow my
colleagues that have worked in law enforcement, for I, too, have worked
in the court systems of criminal justice.
This 287(g) program to me is an exciting idea that has great
potential, and I would love to see it expanded to where we have trained
every law enforcement officer in America in just the style that my
colleague from Washington just described, so that they can not only
honor the diversity as he described, but also can participate in
enforcing the laws of the United States, where the resources required
for interior enforcement of the immigration laws, the number is
overwhelming. To me, it is a good use of resources to use good, honest
law enforcement wherever it exists to enforce the laws of this land.

{time} 1745

I thought about this the other night, because it's an experience that
most everyone here probably, if they will confess, has had. If you live
in Houston, Texas, where my colleague, Ms. Jackson-Lee, lives, or pick
a town, it doesn't really matter, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, Ohio,
and you get a parking ticket, if you fail to pay that parking ticket,
you're probably going to get a notice from the department that takes
care of parking tickets, and they're going to send you that notice and
tell you that you have failed to appear to answer to this parking
ticket.
They're going to stick a fine on there to go with the parking ticket
fine. It could be $100, it could be $50, whatever the jurisdiction
chooses, and then that letter is going to say, if you don't pay these
two offenses, then we're going to issue a warrant for your arrest on a
parking ticket.
Believe me, it happens every day. Ask my daughter, okay? Now, they
probably aren't going to get out and serve that warrant unless they do
some mass roundup, but generally they don't do that. But you're driving
down the street, if you get that ticket in Houston, Texas, and you
happen to be in Dallas with a broken taillight, and a police officer
stops you to tell you he wants to give you a warning about your broken
taillight and he runs the national system of warrants that's available
across this Nation. Guess what he finds? They have a warrant for your
arrest for a parking ticket in Houston, Texas, and he will arrest you;
and he will put you in jail or hold you until you deal with that
ticket.
Now, that's what happens to every American citizen that follows the
scenario that I just gave you, or could happen to them.
Now, 18 months ago, when I was meeting with ICE people, I asked them
how many absconders we had from these folks that were catch-and-release
that had been ordered to court and had failed to appear on the ICE
warrants. I found the number was approximately 700,000 people. It's
probably more now, because I'm talking about 18 months ago; that's the
number they gave to me.
And I asked the ICE agents, are there warrants issued for their
arrests? Are they in the system? And will local law enforcement respect
those warrants? And I couldn't get an answer. I was privately told,
``No.''

[[Page H6389]]

Now, this program, with trained officers out on the street, at least
we could pick up violators of the Federal law who had disrespected the
court system created by this Federal law and had failed to appear in
that court. At least we could pick them up in the manner we pick up
people who get a parking ticket.
We have to be inventive in this problem that we are facing with
massive violation of the law in the immigration system. And I think the
287(g) is the core, so that we train to find these people in prison.
There were times when we were at the jail commission trying to close
our county jail for overcrowdedness that the district judges would
review it every Friday evening, and we would find that 30 percent of
the inmates in our jail would be illegal aliens. Thirty percent. And
sometimes higher.
Let's have trained people. Let's support this amendment. Let's have
trained people and let the departments that want to participate put
trained people on the street to deal with ICE issues.
Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
I've been listening to the debate on this particular amendment, and
I've heard a number of people who are opposed to it speak, I suppose,
about their theories, about how this won't work or why it may not be
effective or what it may do or affect people in a community or
whatever.
I am here, Mr. Chairman, not to talk about theories or not to talk
about speculation, but to talk about what this particular program has
done, in fact, in Orange County, California. My congressional district
is entirely encompassed within the County of Orange in California.
There are five other Members of this body whose congressional districts
are either entirely within Orange County, California, or partially
within Orange County, California, and two jurisdictions within that
county, both the Orange County sheriff's department and the police at
the city of Costa Mesa, California, have been engaged in this program.
I would like to read from a press release that was issued from the
Office of Sheriff-Coroner Mike Carona. This press release was issued
just last month relative to the effectiveness of the program that is
the subject of the lady from Virginia's amendment.
It says, ``Since the inception of Orange County Sheriff Michael
Carona's cross-designation program in January 2007, deputies have
increased the number of immigration holds by more than 400 percent,
from approximately 350 to over 1,600. Of this amount, more than 1,000
of the undocumented individuals who were booked into Orange County jail
were charged with felony law violations, and over 100 were known gang
members.''
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is fact, that since the Orange County
sheriff's department participated in this program and had its deputies
trained on how to enforce our illegal immigration laws, they have taken
off the street 1,600 illegal aliens, 1,000 of whom were felons. So
because of this program, there are 1,000 fewer illegal immigrant felons
walking the streets in Orange County, California.
That is not theory. That is not conjecture. That is actually fact.
Also, in the city of Costa Mesa, which I do not represent, but is
represented by Congressman Rohrabacher, but it's adjacent to my
district, they've recently trained their officers in enforcing
immigration laws, and between March and May of 2007, they identified
and placed containers on 146 illegal immigrants in the city jail, and
of this amount, 53 had committed felonies.
Now, this is in addition to the 1,000 felons that I talked about
before, because it's a separate jurisdiction, a separate city police
force dealing with their jurisdiction within the County of Orange.
So, Mr. Chairman, this program is effective, and I know some people
who are opposed to this amendment have said that somehow it's going to
disrupt community relations or something like that. I can tell you that
the Orange County sheriff's office has been very, very involved in the
community generally, broadly in Orange County, both in ethnic
communities and in regular communities, and very involved in stopping
drugs.
Because what a lot of people are interested in, particularly in some
lower-income communities, is getting the drug dealers and getting the
problems that drugs create out of their community. That's what they're
interested in. They're not necessarily interested in protecting felons
or in making sure that somehow when we have illegal alien felons that
we handicap or restrict the ability of local law enforcement to find
those people, identify them and bring them to justice and eventually
out of this country.
So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the lady from
Virginia, and I support it on the basis of actual, real experience that
has happened in my county; and, that we know of, well over 1,000 felons
who are no longer on the street.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before in this discussion,
and it's easily something that the other party wants to do in spite of
the fact that their local governments tell them they don't want this
done. I think the public and all Members really need to understand what
this is about. This is about the fact that there are people in this
country who are undocumented. That's a fact. How do you remove them out
of the country is another issue.
What happens while they're living in this country is the issue at
hand. Now, throughout the discussion on immigration, we've had
questions like, if a person is here, undocumented, and they have a
child, do you say to that child, you can't go to a public school
because your parents are here undocumented?
Well, if you think they're leaving tomorrow or next year, that might
work. But if you think that eventually whatever plan we come up with
allows X number of children to stay in the country, then you can't deny
them education because you're just creating a generation of Americans
who won't get education.
Then you move on to step two. At times, we have said that if a person
is here undocumented, they should not get any kind of emergency medical
care. Well, besides the humaneness of that, that we should never deny
medical care to anyone, there is the issue of, so do you want the
person working at a local hamburger place serving you food while they
are ill and not able to treat their disease and the germs they may
spread around. That is an issue.
This one is really a classic one. This is where you say to your local
police department, we want you to enforce immigration law. And just
about a unanimous cry throughout the Nation has been from police
departments saying, Don't give us that responsibility. We don't want
it. We don't need it.
The reason they don't want it and they don't need it is for a very
proper crime-fighting purpose. A local police department, a local law
enforcement department, makes contacts in the community, finds out
who's committing crime in the community by talking to folks.
Traditionally, undocumented folks have known and have felt secure in
that they can tell a police officer that a crime has been committed and
point a finger at the person who's committed the crime, knowing very
well that their conversation is about crime and not about documentation
or about their status as a citizen or a noncitizen, an illegal or
undocumented person within the country.
That is the reason why just about every police department in the
Nation, sheriff's, whatever they are called in different communities,
have said, don't give us that responsibility; we don't want it because
we want to keep this relationship going with this community, knowing
well that we can get information out of them.
And they are not dealing with us on an immigration law issue. That's
why we have ICE. That's why we have all other people in the country
that enforce immigration law.
But now we bring it, since September 11, to a new point, and that is,
what if in the gathering of information that could lead to the
prevention of a terrorist attack, you can't get information from some
folks because they're afraid that while speaking to you, their
immigration issue comes to light rather than their information on the
fact that there could be a terrorist plot being planned somewhere.
This is a classic case of the old line throwing the baby out with the
bath

[[Page H6390]]

water. Yes, there is an immigration issue, and we are trying to deal
with it, all of us. And, yes, I know that there are some people that
are very upset about the fact that there are people here who are not
legally in the country.

{time} 1800

But now to go and say that you're the party for law and order, Mr.
Chairman, and at the same time say, but we want to tie the hands of our
local law enforcement in gathering information, is a terrible mistake.
You will continue to do what you want. Eventually more and more
police departments will tell you that they don't want this job; they
don't want this responsibility. And somehow we will continue to get it
wrong. Don't tie the hands of our law enforcement folks. Let them
continue to gather the information they need.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York, but we
solved that problem in my community of Charlotte, North Carolina. We
have a police department that has relationships with the people in
their community, and they go out and deal with them; and the sheriff is
handling our 287(g) program. We have one of the most successful ones in
the country, and it is very simple. The misconception is out there of
what the 287(g) program is really about. It is about people who have
committed some kind of a crime, just like you and me, who are booked
into the jail, and that is why it is perfect for the sheriff to handle
it, because then they are booked into the jail, then the sheriff has
the ability to check the national database and see if that person has
any violations anyplace, anywhere else in the country. That is the
beauty of the program.
We started it in our city. Our sheriff, Jim Pendergraff, has very
successfully found ways to grow this program. And in the first few
months, actually, we had over a thousand people who were removed and
deported that were criminals on the street. It is working very well.
Again, I go back to the fact, and I thank the gentlelady from
Virginia for this amendment because it is crucial we have these all
over the country.
The Senate bill said there were only 50 programs going to be
authorized. We have 3,200 jails in the country. That doesn't cut it.
ICE can't do it all. They literally can't, and local law enforcement is
in a perfect position to be able to help.
Since we started it in Mecklenburg County, all of the counties around
us are also doing the same program because they have found that people
are moving into their county to avoid being caught in Mecklenburg. So
we have our surrounding districts who are applying, have applied or are
now doing the 287(g) program in addition to Mecklenburg. It really
works. It is a good program, and I totally support the efforts to see
this come to fruition as an amendment.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs.
Drake).
Mrs. DRAKE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the
reason I chose this funding, the Office of the Secretary of Management,
is because in researching this, I realized there was an $89 million
increase between 2007 and 2008 funding. That is a 60 percent increase.
I think it is important that money be spent in our communities.
I would also like to point out that I did research the $50 million
that was referenced in the report, and that report isn't very accurate
because by the end of this month, there will be roughly $1 million left
in that account, not $50 million. In 2006, $5 million was appropriated
for operating expenses. In 2007, it was $5.4 million; and then there
was the $50 million appropriated for start-up costs. But by the end of
this month, those will have been almost spent.
With the hard work of people like Sheriff Pendergraff in North
Carolina and our other sheriffs across the Nation, the public is aware
of the services, the resources, the technology and the training, that
can be provided through this program.
Unfortunately for us in Virginia Beach, all of America heard of the
very, very tragic accident that took the lives of two beautiful young
women at the hands of an illegal alien DUI driver who had been
apprehended in our community at least three times and was still back
out on the street.
This is a voluntary program, but citizens in our State are asking:
How can you break our law, be in our justice system and be right back
out on the streets again? This is a program that deals with people who
have been apprehended and not victims or witnesses.
There are also State-level programs. With our DMV, I think every one
of us would want to know that our DMVs can find fraudulent documents
because of these resources that are available.
And in regards to our correctional systems, for local governments to
be telling ICE right in the very beginning, ICE can have all of the
paperwork done and be ready when that person is released for that
person to be deported, just like that, no additional cost of
detainment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friends today who have spoken on
behalf of this amendment, and I certainly appreciate the chairman of
the subcommittee saying he is willing to accept this amendment. I think
all of America thanks you.
Mr. AKIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to compliment the
gentlewoman for being an aggressive leader on this subject. She is very
knowledgeable on the subject and has done a great deal of work in
backgrounding on the amendment she has brought forward. She is doing a
great service to the country in this effort. I want to compliment and
thank the gentlelady for a great job.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I come to the
floor today having responded to the gentlelady from Florida, a
distinguished colleague in the Democrat majority, who asked I think a
very poignant question on the floor within the last hour, and that was:
Where are the reformers?
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get the whole gist and the whole
context of her question, but it seemed to me that could be a headline.
That could be the lead of an editorial. It really represents the
question in which much of the exercise in which we are now involved
could be summarized.
The chairman of this committee I think has earned throughout his
career the label of reformer. I give Chairman Obey that with great
respect, not just as a colleague but as a man who has earned that
reputation.
But today, as someone who over the last 6 years in this Congress has
engaged in fights almost exclusively with my own colleagues on the
Republican side, to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, I ask:
Where are the reformers?
And let me specifically say to my Democrat colleagues who share my
passion for transparency and accountability, I ask the question: Where
are the reformers?
In the last 3 years, and there are colleagues in this room whom I
consider not just friends but good friends with whom I have clashed.
The ranking member of this subcommittee, we have been on this floor
together, Republican on Republican, using, in some cases, the same
tactics that we are using today, but we were not training them on the
majority. We were training them on our own. We were training these
tactics on our own Republican colleagues. That is how passionately we
felt for the need for point of order protection in conference reports
and for fundamental earmark reform. It would be Members of the
Republican Study Committee that virtually singularly took on, not
Democrats in the minority, we took on Republicans in the majority. And
it was painful among our friends to do it, but we withheld our support
for the majority budget. We negotiated fairly but firmly with our own
colleagues and friends to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform,
requiring that people add their names to earmarks, requiring that
earmarks be included in legislation, that they be subject to challenge
on the floor of this Congress. These were modest gains, and clearly,
the result of election day on November 2006, they

[[Page H6391]]

were too little, too late. Our clock ran out on this side of the aisle.
But we were fighting on this side amongst ourselves and making
halting progress toward earmark reform. That is why, as I watched this
debate and as I participate in it, I will be here, as we say in
Indiana, until the cows come home. I ask with a sincere heart: Where
are the reformers in the majority? Where are the reformers who will
come down into this well, and I see some up there that wear that label
and deserve it, but on this issue, where are the reformers who are
willing to come into this well and say, how about ``no''? How about we
don't bring appropriation bills to the floor without all of the
spending items in the bill, including Member projects and earmarks, so
they can be subject to the accountability and the scrubbing of the
legislative process?
I know it is inconvenient. I do not question for one second the
sincerity of the chairman of this committee, that he is trying and
laboring to find a way forward to achieve his goals. But at the end of
the day, we cannot set aside the accountability of the legislative
process. I ask again: Where are the reformers?
Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PENCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have been in elected office, local, State and Federal, for 34
years, and I cannot imagine how any of your community got built without
earmarks at the local level, the State level and the Federal level.
There are also earmarks in the bill the President sends down. I think
you have misstated the whole symbol of earmarks. The reform in here is
more severe than any local, State or Federal office has ever had in the
history of the United States.
Mr. PENCE. Reclaiming my time, the distinguished gentleman should
know that I have supported earmark reform, not banning earmarks, but we
can't have earmarks that deny the legislative process here on the
floor. Where are the reformers?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, and I certainly am not
directing my comments to the gentleman who just spoke, but I do want to
make a few comments about the issue of so-called earmarks.
For the last 2 days, Member after Member in this institution have
traipsed to the well or stood at the committee table and misdescribed
and mischaracterized my proposals and the proposals that several other
Democrats have made to reform the earmarking process.
I would simply say, I would have been greatly, if I had had any
regard at all for those who were making those statements, I would have
been upset. Let me simply say there are many Members--well, that is not
true. There are some Members who have embarrassed this institution by
the carelessness of their earmarks who came to the well and sounded off
as so-called champions of reform.
There are Members who have come up to me and chastised me because I
was insisting on a 50 percent reduction on earmarks; who have sent me
letters asking for earmark after earmark after earmark. And there are a
great many Members of this body who are not members of the
Appropriations Committee who seem to have a memory lapse and forget
that the bridge to nowhere, and most of the actions by Mr. Cunningham
had nothing to do with the appropriations process; they occurred on
legislation out of other committees.
I want to make clear, I hate the earmarking process. I absolutely
detest it, not because earmarks are wrong, I think 90 percent of the
earmarks attached by Members of both parties are perfectly legitimate,
and they are a whole lot more on target than the misdirected spending
of some of our bureaucrats and the misdirected analysis of OMB, and I
know that from personal experience.
The reason I hate earmarks is because they suck everybody in. They
suck them into the idea that we have to be ATM machines for our
districts, and so they focus on the tiny portion of most bills that are
earmarks instead of focusing on the policy that is represented by the
legislation that we produce.

{time} 1815

It's a whole lot more important to know whether we have adequately
funded education or whether we have funded the right programs in
education and refused to add funding to some of the worst programs in
education than it is to know whether a Member got a $200,000 earmark
for an after-school center.
I want the public to know all of that. Every earmark I've ever gotten
I believe I've put out a press release and talked as loud as I could
and tried to get as much attention to it as I could, because I believed
in it.
But what I don't believe in is people who walk both sides of the
street. I could tell you what they call them in my hometown. The letter
begins with W, and I just want to say that I'm going to be very
interested in seeing which Members ask for earmarks and which don't,
and I'm going to be very interested in seeing which Members vote for
the amendment that I intend to attach to every appropriation bill,
which would call for a total elimination on earmarks. I want to see how
many of you actually vote for it. I want to see how many of you do not
give hypocrisy a bad name.
I thank the House for its attention.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the timing of this discussion, I really asked to be
recognized to address the Drake amendment, but as I listened to the
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I think there are some things
that we need to take up and add to this particular discussion that he's
opened up.
And that is, what do we do about this conundrum of earmarks? First of
all, we do have too many earmarks, and I've not been one that's said
that that solves our spending problem here, but I think it puts bait
out there for people to do things that, first of all, if the bloggers
could see the things that are going on, they would weigh in on us, and
perhaps that would be some of the regulatory function that the bloggers
could perform.
But a couple of nights ago, I sat down and went through two
appropriations bills. One of them was the omnibus spending bill for
2005, 1,600 pages; another appropriation bill, 400 pages; all together,
2,000 pages. And I didn't read it all, wouldn't have been possible, but
I leafed through that appropriations bill, and I find in there earmarks
that wouldn't be identified as earmarks. I find in there language that
says this funding shall go to this company as funded in previous years.
And my recommendation to the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, who hopefully would hear what I would have to say, that
being a bill I introduced last year called the CUT Act, ``cut
unnecessary tab,'' as in a bar tab, unnecessary spending. But what it
does is it solves the problem that's been identified here and, to some
degree, described by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and
articulately addressed by Mr. Pence and others here on this floor.
It puts us all up to public scrutiny. Sunlight is the antidote, and
we ought to have enough pride in every earmark that we ask for that we
would allow the public to see what we're doing with our spending.
And when I look through an appropriations bill, 2,000 pages of them,
and I see that even if you knew what you were looking for, you couldn't
identify that earmark, you couldn't identify the amount. You might
identify the company that it goes to, but unless you had an in with the
committee staff and you could trace back through that paperwork, and no
one outside this Chamber that I know of can do that without favors by a
Member, and a lot of Members couldn't walk in there and get that
information, including myself. We need to set this all up for the
public scrutiny.
So I spent a couple of years working through my proposal, and I'll
hopefully be able to introduce the language again so it's here and goes
into this discussion. But the CUT Act makes in order a bill to come to
the floor once a quarter that is a rescissions bill and a rescissions
bill only. It might just be a blank title offered by the majority
leader or the minority leader on the

[[Page H6392]]

other side, but every Member could bring an amendment down to that.
And it takes this idea that once you go to the conference report and
you offer it to the House and the Senate, up-or-down vote, no
amendments, no one can know what's in there and no one can read it all,
no one can analyze it if they can read it all, but if we put that all
up and post it up on the Internet and let the world look at what we're
doing and then bring a bill to the floor that's a rescissions bill and
let any Member bring an amendment to strike something like the
reference was to the ``bridge to nowhere,'' put that up on an up-or-
down vote and accumulate that list of rescissions. Then, in the end,
we've got an appropriations process that everyone in this Chamber, no
one will have an excuse to say I couldn't find that amendment; I
couldn't find that language; I couldn't take it out; it wasn't my
responsibility. We all become collectively responsible for every dollar
spent by this Congress, and if we do that, we truly have sunlight and
we truly have a full responsibility. And that's the step that we need
to take.
The rest is rhetoric. The rest is hiding behind one side of political
argument or the other, but if we're willing to put our earmarks up for
an up-or-down vote and let this Congress go on record for any line
item, then we truly have the sunlight on this that we've asked for; and
I'd ask that consideration from the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee.
The people that want to stand up for reform, here it is, the CUT Act.
And then in the moments I have left, I would add that I stand in
support of the Drake amendment. And I grew up in a law enforcement
family. You cannot enforce laws effectively if you're going to have
local government or State law enforcement that decides that they can't
engage in enforcing Federal law or vice versa. This has got to be a
kind of working, compatible relationship so that the city police,
county sheriffs, highway patrolmen and Federal officers all work in a
collaborative arrangement. And we need to have the resources to train
those local officers.
When we have people on the streets that are picked up two, three,
four, five or six times for a traffic violation or an insurance
violation, or in an accident or a minor misdemeanor, and they're
released back into society and then someone is killed or someone is
raped or someone is robbed from, the price to this economy and this
society is horrible and horrendous.
And we can't get government to tell us what those numbers are, but I
commissioned a GAO study here that was released in April of 2005 that
produced those numbers, and I'll bring those numbers back to this
floor.
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I'm a new Member of this institution. I sat here last
night, along with a lot of Members of this body; and on my way, walking
to my apartment, I was walking with another freshman Member, and we
were talking about what did we just do.
It was what we didn't do. We listened to procedure after procedure,
stall after stall, finger-pointing after finger-pointing; and here we
were talking about, I thought, an appropriation for something that is
incredibly important to this entire Nation. Our national security is at
stake.
I'm going to say something also as a new Member. I will comment on
the bill in a moment.
I want to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Quite
frankly, he has a much longer fuse than I have. So much finger-pointing
going on. I know how much work that he and Representative Price and
other people have put into these bills.
I'm not an appropriator. I'm a clothing worker, but I'm a freshman
Member of this body, and I know finger-pointing when I see it. I know
coming to the floor and getting your picture on TV and making sure the
cameras hear every word that you say, but I also know the difference
between right and wrong. And I will tell you this, Mr. Chairman, last
night this was absolutely one of the worst dog-and-pony shows I've
seen, and hopefully we will never have to revisit this again.
To the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, let me say, I
understand how much work went into this, and to the appropriators, how
many hearings went on. I heard about the 3\1/2\-month delay that we
were blamed about, but the very same chairman of the Appropriations
Committee was verbally blasted in this Chamber because he had the
unmitigated gall to try to put things in that would give hurricane
relief to people affected on the gulf coast, give an opportunity for
people to be able to have better lives, a farm disaster, wildfires that
we don't have any money for to put out.
How quick we can be to criticize. It's easy, very easy to do.
I'm here tonight to say to this chairman of the committee and to the
appropriators, I thank you for the hard work that you have done. We'll
get these passed. We have agreed to a rule that opened this Chamber up
to allow people to be able to do it, to be able to offer amendments and
to come to the floor. I didn't think we offered it so that we could
just have a 2 o'clock in the morning marathon, but I was elected to do
the work of the people of the 17th Congressional District.
This bill fulfills the commitment to the 9/11 Commission's
recommendations. How many years have we been waiting for that, Mr.
Chairman?
It provides significant increased support to our first responders, to
Customs and border agents and the Transportation and Security
Administration. It appropriates $44 million above 2007 to
infrastructure protection so communities can identify and assess
critical security vulnerabilities. It funds disaster relief to the tune
of $1.7 billion so our State and local governments can respond to
declared disasters or emergencies.
My congressional district runs almost from the Wisconsin border to
St. Louis. I've seen what floods can do to my district. I see what it
could do to our farmers and how it can displace people. This bill
provides $230 million to modernize and digitize over 100,000 flood maps
used to determine rates for the National Flood Insurance program.
And the bill assures the consistent application of Davis-Bacon
prevailing wage standards to construction projects funded with Federal
grants. By guaranteeing payments of the prevailing local wage rate,
this legislation facilitates a better standard of living and economic
security for workers, particularly in rural communities and small towns
in my district.
I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by again thanking the chairman of the
Appropriations Committee. I thank my friend Congressman Price for the
hard work that he's put in. As I said, these bills will pass, and we
will let the people of our district and the people of this Nation be
the ones to decide which one of us, which Member of this body, really
came here to do the work of the people. I did and so did many, many of
my colleagues in this Chamber. But I will tell you what I won't do: I
will not go back to my congressional district and apologize for putting
in for projects.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hare) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hare was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. HARE. Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to apologize for trying to keep
my arsenal, the 7,500 jobs there that produce armor to keep our troops
safe in Iraq. I'm not apologizing for trying to save the community of
Galesburg that lost a plant because of unfair trade policies to Sonora,
Mexico. I don't apologize for writing things and asking for money. It's
the taxpayers' money.
I don't apologize for anything I came here to work on. I will
continue to work. But let me tell you, I'm not going to go through
another night like I had last night. I'm going to be very vocal, and
I'm going to stand up and I'm going to defend the people of this
district.
I'm going to defend our leadership because I don't think they need
defense, but I think they need to know there are a lot of us that
really believe in what they have been doing.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have great respect for the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee, and I heard what he said about the position he's in. I don't
envy being in that position, to try to wade through 30,000-some earmark
requests. As he mentioned, there are some within that

[[Page H6393]]

number that will embarrass this institution and embarrass the Members,
I have no doubt of that; and I think that's part of the reason that
those have not been made public. I think that is the reason that they
are kept with the committee.
But we are in a situation now where this well has been poisoned. If
we go ahead and go through with the proposal that we simply in August
list the earmarks that are being put into the bill, that are going to
be airdropped into the bill later, without the ability to challenge
them individually, there will surely be accusations, founded or
unfounded, that people are being targeted for their opposition to
earmarks, to speaking out on the floor, for speaking about them,
against them or for them, or people will be favored or not. That's the
nature of the game. That's the nature of the political process.
So I think it will be virtually impossible to go through that kind of
atmosphere without the process being tainted even further.
I believe the chairman when he says that he hates earmarks. I think
if it were up to him, he would get rid of them, and I would certainly
support him. I don't think that the Democratic Caucus would allow that
to happen because I fear that they believe, as we did as Republicans,
that that's the surest path to reelection, that you protect vulnerable
Members by giving them earmarks, that you spread it around in ways that
you can curry favor with your constituents and your voters.

{time} 1830

I think that is a road that leads directly back to the minority, but
I wouldn't propose to give advice in that regard. I think that's part
of the reason we are where we are today.
But all I know is that, when we have a situation, there is no perfect
solution, certainly. We are in a fix now. But a situation where you
have a choice of actually putting earmarks in bills with information
about who has requested that earmark, what entity that earmark goes to,
or balance that against a process where you simply can write a letter
to the committee and ask about specific earmarks, I think that we as
Members should demand the latter.
I, for one, am not willing to trade in this voting card. This is a
card that we all get when we are elected that we use multiple times a
day on this House floor. It allows us to register our support or
opposition for specific legislation.
I am not willing to give this up for the ability to write a letter to
the chairman of the committee or anyone else in Congress. That's a bad
trade. I don't think that's a trade that anybody should be happy with.
I am intrigued by the chairman's proposal to offer an amendment on
each appropriation bill to strike earmarks.
I would be most pleased if the gentleman would be glad to yield time
if he would explain that amendment there is to offer. I will support
it. I will gladly support it. So I would love to learn more about it.
Perhaps we can jointly sponsor it.
But until then, until then, I think the country deserves to know
what's in the bills when we vote on them. We aren't well served with
the process, however intended, a process that keeps earmarks secret
until a time that it is too late to actually challenge that earmark on
the House floor.
So I think that this is a fight that is worth fighting, and I am glad
that my colleagues have taken it up.
I support the amendment.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for this
opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2638, the ``Homeland
Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2008.'' My amendment
would provide an additional $5 million to FEMA, to support emergency
preparedness efforts for vulnerable communities, including racial and
ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and the
economically disadvantaged.
My amendment is very simple, but it is extremely necessary. In my own
district in Houston, and in communities throughout America, minority,
elderly, disabled, and improverished populations have not been
adequately prepared for the upcoming hurricane season. Special efforts
must be made to engage these most vulnerable members of our communities
in vitally necessary emergency preparedness education, training, and
awareness.
I am particularly dismayed that these vulnerable populations have not
been targeted by outreach efforts communicating the need to prepare for
a major hurricane. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck some of America's
most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, communities which are
just now beginning to find their feet again after these devastating
storms. National, state, and local governments have not fulfilled their
responsibility to ensure that they are not, once again, left to face
nature's wrath alone.
We saw the utter failure of government response 2 years ago, when
Hurricane Katrina struck our shores. One Katrina survivor, a resident
of New Orleans named Charmaine Neville, told her story in an interview
following Hurricane Katrina. Ms. Neville described having no way to
evacuate the city before the storm hit, and her feelings of abandonment
by the authorities. She discussed her personal efforts, and those of
other volunteers, to rescue stranded and vulnerable individuals ``from
the hospices, from the hospitals and from the old-folks homes.''
Ms. Neville's testimony is shocking, even 2 years later. She states,
``I tried to get the police to help us, but I realized they were in the
same straits we were,'' and tells the story of her personal rescue of 2
elderly women in wheelchairs. Ms. Neville recalls, ``When we finally
did get into the 9th ward, and not just in my neighborhood, but in
other neighborhoods in the 9th ward, there were a lot of people still
trapped down there . . . old people, young people, babies, pregnant
women.'' She told the interviewer, ``What I want people to understand
is that, if we hadn't been left down there like the animals that they
were treating us like, all of those things wouldn't have happened. When
they gave the evacuation order, if we could've left, we would have
left.''
Another Hurricane Katrina survivor described the situation at a local
hospital, where his wife was employed as a nurse, in the days following
the storm. ``You can imagine a hospital with 2,000 people and no
electricity, water, food, or flushing toilets. Breathing machines did
not work. Cell phones did not work. Because the computers stopped
working, medicines were unavailable. Elevators in the 8 floor building
did not work. We quickly ran out of food because the cafeteria and food
were also in the flooded basement. The gains of 21st century medicine
disappeared. Over 40 people died in the hospital over the next few days
as we waited for help.''

He went on to talk about the evacuation, stating, ``The Katrina
evacuation was totally self-help. If you had the resources, a car,
money and a place to go, you left. The poor, especially those without
cars, were left behind. The sick were left behind. The elderly were
left behind. Untold numbers of other disabled people and their
caretakers were also left behind. Children were left behind. Prisoners
were left behind.''
I believe in an America in which no one is left behind. I believe in
an America where these vulnerable sectors of the population are
targeted by education, training, and awareness programs; an America in
which they receive the tools and resources that they need to survive
the next disaster. And I believe that, thus far, federal, state, and
local governments have failed to provide this.
In light of this lack of adequate response, dedicated community
activists, like Mr. Charles X. White of Houston, have stepped forward
to fill this void. Mr. White and his organization, Charity Productions,
are working tirelessly to provide much-needed resources for the
elderly, disabled, impoverished, and minority communities of Houston.
Community projects, like Mr. White's, that reach vulnerable members of
our population are particularly crucial in light of predictions of a
devastating hurricane season this year.
I saw firsthand the plight of vulnerable populations after Hurricane
Rita. During the hurricane, I fielded calls at Houston's Emergency
Operations Center in order to facilitate obtaining assistance for
elderly and disabled residents. I believe it is unconscionable to,
despite the knowledge and experience we have gained in the past 2
years, allow this to happen again.
A major component of hurricane preparedness must be an evacuation
plan. In New Orleans, residents were divided between those who had cars
and could easily escape, and those who did not. Nationally, African
Americans and Latinos comprise about 54 percent of those reliant of
public transportation. Blacks are 6 times more likely than whites to
travel via public transit.
Since Katrina, cities like New Orleans have made some attempt to
address evacuation deficiencies. According to reports, New Orleans has
developed a system of bus evacuation; however, managers of the program
have released few details about accommodations for those individuals
with limited mobility. Matthew Kallmyer, New Orleans' deputy emergency
preparedness director, has been quoted as saying, ``Those people need
to go ahead and try to make their own plan, of course. At the end of
the day, you know you are someone who has a disability. Try to go ahead
and find the means to get yourself out or get yourself to one of the
evacuation points.''

[[Page H6394]]

We have an obligation to provide the American people with a disaster
response system that works. We must not allow the lessons of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita to fall on deaf ears. My amendment seeks to fund the
groups and programs that target vulnerable communities, to ensure that,
when the next hurricane hits, these groups may be adequately prepared.
I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee, and
Chairman Obey and Chairman Price, to ensure language in the Conference
Report for H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Act of 2008, which provides funds to FEMA for hurricane
preparedness outreach to vulnerable communities.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had come
to no resolution thereon.

____________________