[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15476-15536]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2638.

                              {time}  1459


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Frank of Massachusetts in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) and the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of 
our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last 
number of months.
  Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring 
testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside 
experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have 
been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported 
by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings.
  I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural 
chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant 
contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong, 
bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department, 
and I have endeavored to continue on that path.
  I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member 
of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his 
expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his 
commitment to public service and to this institution.
  And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for 
and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both 
majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her 
mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components 
has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of 
Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the 
majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on 
the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our 
subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these 
individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country.
  Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in 
discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent, 
above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an 
emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called ``emergency'' 
funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily 
been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains 
$2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President 
Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding 
homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than 
justify this level of funding.
  This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to 
address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new 
emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems.
  Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States 
and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity 
but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be 
dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a 
faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local 
communities. And this bill honors that partnership.
  Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well 
spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting, 
procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal 
2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs 
and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or 
level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a 
total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits 
detailed expenditure plans.
  And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside 
reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long-
term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively. 
For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of 
Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the 
Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to 
ensure that investments are well targeted.
  The funding increases provided in this bill address the security 
vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/
11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security 
actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act.
  Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849 
million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo 
security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill. 
And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior 
to loading onto passenger aircraft.
  Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more 
than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, 
$190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is 
provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE 
Ports Act.
  Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million, 
$100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response 
System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17

[[Page 15477]]

million more than 2007. State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement 
Terrorism Prevention grants are funded at $950 million; that is $50 
million more than 2007. Urban area security grants are funded at $800 
million, $30 million more than the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable 
communication grants are funded in total at $100 million, in contrast 
to no funding provided in 2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, 
$138 million more than 2007. And FEMA management and administration is 
funded at $685 million, $150 million more than 2007.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the 
bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts 
and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently 
submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never 
competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds 
be awarded through full and open competitive processes except when 
other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This 
approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are 
no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill.
  In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability 
that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities 
throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated 
immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some 
number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying 
and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify 
every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their 
release from prison.
  These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for 
committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all 
too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information 
about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the 
first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This 
bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen.
  The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of 
$1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it 
plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders. 
For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an 
analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total 
cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and 
other factors.
  We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support 
of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I 
want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on 
border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the 
Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision 
simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult 
affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts 
minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the 
Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is 
appropriate.
  We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent 
the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply 
with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition, 
the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem 
that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the 
southwest border.
  Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers, 
despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they 
don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law 
enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on 
to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP 
officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal 
2008.
  The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal 
data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of 
the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds 
funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections 
are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in 
hand.
  In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman. 
First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and 
local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the 
Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and 
contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. 
Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility 
at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits 
an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long 
overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape, 
and involuntary servitude.
  This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of 
lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On 
the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by 
colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus. 
This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an 
explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely 
unacceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman 
on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of 
this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's 
continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to 
state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the 
concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as 
possible.
  I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific 
items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility.
  The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is 
$36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and 
amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't 
even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been 
added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion 
in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month.
  If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent 
increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would 
give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that 
recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the 
Department.
  The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and 
I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, 
even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more 
government do not equal more security.
  Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget 
to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over 
current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort.
  And when I use the term ``responsible,'' Mr. Chairman, I am also 
stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out 
legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to 
contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them, 
at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate 
deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I 
support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be 
very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded.

                              {time}  1515

  We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay, 
assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails.
  Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to 
determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien 
or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do 
that. So I don't know what

[[Page 15478]]

will be the result of this mandate. It is unfunded, and it is going to 
be very difficult to put in practice. The Department already surveys 
routinely the most probable jails where the most probable criminal 
aliens are being held anyway.
  Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to 
carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill 
presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other 
sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension 
program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the 
streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than 
those incarcerated in the jails.
  These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include 
tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, 
preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive 
national security technology, and taking down employers who are 
exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse.
  From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order 
to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which 
never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE 
should refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal 
aliens at the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who 
are raping and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is 
potentially very dangerous.
  There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am 
concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the 
Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic 
implementation of this policy as we move forward.
  I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with 
securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's 
borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To 
address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated 
for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill 
contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and 
other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department 
performs certain actions.
  At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure 
requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added 
together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede 
installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing 
the border will be greatly deterred.
  While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning 
requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our 
borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to 
ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget. 
There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution 
of the Department's border security mission.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the 
cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002, 
and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons, 
reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that 
time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we 
put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline 
in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to 
hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in 
research and technology were largely ignored.
  By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA 
was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better, 
cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport, 
x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more 
expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies 
of airports.
  The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that 
TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply 
adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous 
solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore 
the 45,000 screener cap later today.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations 
we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended 
to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the 
Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and 
duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these 
grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are 
transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk 
reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended 
to be.
  Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this 
bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing 
committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and 
administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government 
expects for the grants that we do make.
  Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our 
vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly 
when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first 
responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We 
should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put 
billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to 
be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline?
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to 
do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations 
that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the 
Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and 
continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.
  I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and 
the Senate as the bill moves forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the 
chairman of the subcommittee to inquire about the language in the 
report accompanying this bill relating to funding for the capability 
replacement laboratory that is being built as part of the Pacific 
Northwest Laboratory complex in the 300 Area at Hanford. This lab is 
being constructed in order to replace facilities that are being 
demolished as a result of the environmental cleanup program managed by 
the Department of Energy. The existing lab provides critical science 
and technology capabilities to the Department of Homeland Security, 
including radiation detection and analysis, information, analytics and 
testing, evaluation and certification capabilities.
  To maintain these capabilities, DHS, along with 2 agencies within 
DOE, has entered into a memorandum of understanding to share the cost 
for replacing this laboratory complex.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to point out that DHS provided approximately $2.25 
million in prior years for conceptual design of this project. In 
addition, the FY07 Homeland Security appropriation bill provided $2 
million for the continued design and initial construction of this 
facility. And I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for his help last 
year. However, no funds were included in the FY08 budget request from 
DHS. The MOU calls for $25 million to be contributed by DHS to begin 
construction. If this funding is not included, the project will likely 
be delayed into future years, causing both DHS and DOE to lose 
important laboratory capabilities they need to keep our country safe.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the gentleman for those important points. It is my 
understanding that there is language in the report to accompany the 
bill addressing the funding commitment made by DHS in the MOU.

[[Page 15479]]

  I would yield to the chairman of the subcommittee for clarification.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. The gentleman is correct. Language in 
the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill 
the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed 
last November.
  Mr. DICKS. I thank the chairman for his response, and I ask him to 
continue to work with me and my colleague from Washington to ensure 
that this obligation is fulfilled by DHS.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I would be happy to work with you and 
Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction 
provided in the report.
  Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
  I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Thank you for yielding. I thank the 
gentleman, and I thank the Chair as well, and look forward to working 
with both of you in this regard.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very 
hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. I want to thank the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Ranking Member Rogers, for yielding time and for the 
leadership he and Chairman Price have given this committee. It has been 
a pleasure to serve.
  I rise today to speak about an issue of vital importance to me, the 
infrastructure protection and our energy delivery system protection.
  This bill has $532 million to protect the infrastructure of this 
country. Our transportation system has been a very high focus because 
that is how we were attacked, the use of our transportation system. But 
in my view, the vulnerability of America is very much its 
infrastructure on energy. We lack oil refineries and cannot afford to 
have any refineries offline from a terrorist attack. We now import 13 
percent of our gasoline from foreign countries and often have to bid 
for it when it's in the ship.
  Our natural gas system is struggling to furnish adequate and 
affordable natural gas for us to heat our homes and run our businesses 
because we are using huge amounts of it now to generate electricity. We 
are using large amounts of it now to make ethanol because it is a fuel. 
Ninety-six percent of all the new ethanol plants use natural gas.
  We are finding that natural gas is the mother's milk of this country, 
and any disruption in our pipeline system, because we are not able to 
produce adequate amounts of natural gas without any disruption in the 
current delivery system.
  Our electric grid, in my view, we were short on generating capacity; 
that has been beefed up because we have built a lot of natural gas 
electric generators. But we have not adequately invested, or in some 
cases have not been able to build the grid that connects our country. 
We need to have all of our country criss-crossed with a stronger grid, 
so that if any portion of it goes down, another portion, we can come in 
the back door with electricity.
  Our dependence on electricity and our use of electricity is growing 
every day. And in my view, with wind and solar slowly coming online, 
those are often in areas that we don't have a good hookup to the grid, 
and we need to build transmission lines to bring that capacity to the 
system.
  I believe the Department of Homeland Security must be more 
stringently identified as a priority within the Department of Homeland 
Security. I have said throughout the process of marking up this bill 
that the vulnerabilities of our electric grid, our pipeline system and 
our refinery system need to be a higher priority. I am thankful for the 
language that was accepted in this bill to require the Department of 
Homeland Security, with input from the Department of Energy, to provide 
a report on the most critical capacity limit segments of the North 
American electricity transmission and distribution network. And we 
probably ought to be doing the same for all of our other energy 
infrastructures.
  It is critical that we identify these segments and also identify if 
disruption of any of these segments would generate a cascading affect 
that could cripple the economy of our country. It is vital that we 
protect our energy infrastructure.
  I want to thank Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price for their dedication on this 
bill and their willingness to work with me on what I believe are the 
vulnerabilities that need to be beefed up to make sure this country has 
the energy it needs.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our 
colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill and would 
like to commend Chairman Price, Ranking Member Rogers, and their 
wonderful staff for their hard work in bringing this bill to the floor.
  The bill provides adequate funding for programs that are crucial to 
the Nation's security, many of which the President chose to underfund 
or eliminate in his request.
  Although we have not suffered a terrorist attack since the morning of 
9/11, the threat remains real. Therefore, it is crucial that we provide 
sufficient resources to support those who represent our first line of 
defense.
  I am pleased that the bill acknowledges this reality and restores 
proposed cuts to grant programs such as the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System and the SAFER program, which helps our struggling local 
fire departments fulfill ever-increasing homeland security missions.

                              {time}  1530

  I know that my own City of New York is making good use of all of 
these grants, including those provided to the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative grant program.
  Beyond helping our States and municipalities, I would also like to 
express my support for the way the committee handles the balance 
between the different demands in the different departments and their 
ongoing missions. These critical missions, such as stopping the flow of 
illegal drugs and approving visas, have not gone away since 9/11. This 
bill properly recognizes this reality and provides support.
  Finally, I am pleased that the chairman and ranking member chose to 
address issues related to the treatment and deportation of immigrants. 
As we work to secure our borders, it is important that we never lose 
touch with America's enduring spirit as a nation that stands ready to 
welcome all who come in search of a better life.
  Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe the bill does a good job of 
providing adequate funds for programs crucial to the security of the 
homeland and strengthens the partnership between the Federal, State and 
local governments and all the local communities. I truly believe it 
includes all the ingredients necessary for success.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I would ask 
for their vote.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members 
of our subcommittee.
  Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking 
Member Rogers for the hard work that they have done on this Homeland 
Security bill. What we are trying to do is secure our Nation with our 
Homeland Security bill, and this goes a long way to doing that. But I 
have some concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them.
  We have got to secure our Nation, and it is of primary importance to 
this country that we secure this Nation at every level. We have been 
working diligently and hard to do that. We have tried to use an open 
process in the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and that is, we lay all 
our cards on the table in our appropriations bill. We have historically 
let all the spending on homeland security be laid out before this House 
so that the daylight and reality of how we are spending the American 
people's money is in the bill.

[[Page 15480]]

  I am concerned, and I wish to express the concern that in the 
appropriations process this year there is a lot that is going to be 
done in the dark. In this particular bill, it is a very small item as 
compared to what is coming down the road at us, but there is $16 
million for bridges which we won't know exactly how that is going to be 
spent for this House to examine it, but it will be ``air dropped'' in 
in the conference committee. That is an indicator of what we are 
looking at as we deal with Member-initiated spending with the nickname 
of ``earmarks'' in the future.
  At present, the plan is to set aside the money but not tell us how to 
spend it, and, oh, by the way vote for it. But I think in the last 
election the American people told us that they wanted sunlight on this 
process. They wanted to be able to see how we spend our money, 
including they wanted our names put on the things that were 
individually requested. In fact, the Republican House passed such a 
rule, to put the names on every earmark.
  Yet we see in a very small part in this bill, and much expanded in 
the bills to follow, that there is going to be no sunshine on this 
process. In fact, it is going to be inside closed doors in the 
conference committee where there is really not a whole lot this House 
can do about it.
  With increased nonemergency spending of $81.4 billion, these are 
issues that American people want to know about it. They want their 
elected Representatives to take a look at it and be able to figure out 
how the money is being spent. We debated this process the last session 
of Congress. We made it important to us as individual Members. We 
talked about it and discussed it and voted on it.
  Now, all of a sudden, we have a process that has gone behind closed 
doors in secrecy, and as we vote these things out, as Members of 
Congress we are voting a bill which has a fund set-aside which we are 
not told how that fund is going to be spent. We are told it could be 
published over the break. This is inexcusable.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.
  Mr. FARR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a member of this committee and want to 
commend the style of this committee. I don't think any committee has 
had more hearings with more substantive issues than this Committee on 
Appropriations for security.
  In fact, this bill appropriates a record amount of spending, $36.3 
billion. What we tried to do in the committee, and I want to commend 
Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price, was starting out asking what are the risk 
issues that we really need to face in the Nation. This whole emphasis 
has been essentially an antiterrorism effort, when, in reality, in 
creating this huge, huge bureaucracy and moving the Department of 
Agriculture and everybody else into it, what we have found from a lot 
of experts is that you really have to deal with issues such as the 
first responders would be the same for a terrorist activity as they 
would be for a natural disaster, and that we really have to base our 
decisions on risk-based management.
  It was no more clear than in a place that we are just sort of 
throwing money at, which is the border between Mexico and the United 
States. In testimony, we found that there are more terrorist 
incidents--in fact, there have been none on the Mexican-U.S. border, 
but there have been several on the U.S.-Canadian border where we have 
very little security whatsoever. So if you were acting just on risk 
management, you would put more assets on the Canadian border than on 
the Mexican border. But the emphasis here isn't about homeland 
security; it is more about immigration.
  I think hearing all the things put together, this is a really good 
bill.
  One of the things Mr. Rogers mentioned that I would like to just 
disagree with, all of our local law enforcement say that the biggest 
problem they are having is they arrest people who don't have papers and 
then they release them because nobody from INS will come around and 
check it out. Everybody on the committee was concerned about the fact 
that there wasn't enough effort put into what they call ``jail 
checks,'' and this committee bill addresses that.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Members, and point out that 
this is not just a spending bill, because they cut a lot of things and 
they put conditions on spending.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our 
committee.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the 
distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.
  I commend the gentleman from North Carolina for putting together a 
bill that meets the security needs of this country. As a former member 
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, I respect the enormous task the 
subcommittee has in providing oversight to a department that is still 
finding its way.
  Of particular concern to me are the Department's Infrastructure 
Protection analysis centers, which provide basic analytic services to 
the Department of Homeland Security. PSAC, the Protective Security 
Analysis Center, is one such tool. PSAC is a collaborative effort 
between a number of Department of Energy national labs and industry 
partners which exist to collect, analyze and share infrastructure risk 
information within DHS, as well as with the communities in which the 
infrastructure is located.
  PSAC integrates infrastructure information, risk analysis and data 
collection through assessment tools to support the process of risk-
based decision-making. PSAC also hosts a number of DHS systems 
supporting chemical facility security and bombing prevention, as well 
as the National Asset Database, all of which are essential to 
accomplishing the DHS mission.
  It is also important to note that DHS has made a $52 million 
investment in PSAC over the past 4 years to develop these capabilities 
and expertise. Without continued support, this significant investment 
would be lost and DHS would be left with numerous unfunded mission 
requirements. It is my understanding the committee has approved $78.9 
million for identification and analysis.
  Chairman Price, I ask if you will work with me, please, to ensure 
that the Department of Homeland Security provides adequate funding for 
these analysis centers, particularly the PSAC, in FY 08.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest 
in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC.
  As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the 
Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out 
identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the 
analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to 
model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
  The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to 
working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities 
are adequately funded in our bill.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full 
Appropriations Committee.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. For too long, this Congress has failed to 
fund our critical homeland security priorities. I am pleased, however, 
that this bill today takes significant steps towards addressing these 
issues.
  As a Member who represents the Port of Oakland, I want to just 
mention port security, which has been long neglected by the Bush 
administration. In this bill, we make an important commitment to 
provide at the authorized level $400 million in port security grants, 
which is $190 million over the President's request.

[[Page 15481]]

  To protect critical transit infrastructure, this bill provides $400 
million in grants, which is $225 million over the President's request.
  On the issue of ensuring that first responders are able to 
communicate between themselves, this bill provides $50 million for 
essential interoperable communications.
  Mr. Chairman, this Congress is making good on its promise to provide 
a clear and new and realistic direction on homeland security. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing 
committee for homeland security in the House.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 
2008. I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers 
for including a solid increase for funding for detection canine teams 
used by DHS. The bill includes an increase of $17.3 million that will 
add more canine teams for air cargo inspections. The bill also includes 
funding for 1,506 canine teams for CBP, which represents an increase of 
272 teams over last year's level.
  These increases reflect a provision I supported in the Rail and 
Public Transportation Safety Act of 2007 and H.R. 659, the Canine 
Detection Team Improvement Act, which I introduced earlier this year.
  However, I am deeply concerned about section 527 that would classify 
instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center as 
inherently governmental. This provision would impose a dangerous ban on 
using non-Federal trainers after a national emergency and the resulting 
needed times of surge.
  I also remain concerned about the ability of DHS to recruit and train 
an additional 3,000 new Border Patrol agents funded by the bill. Given 
attrition rates, this means that Border Patrol will need to hire and 
train approximately 4,400 agents a year. While I support putting more 
boots on the ground as quickly as possible, I am convinced that the 
current approach DHS is using cannot meet this goal.
  I am also concerned that it continues to cost $187,000 to recruit, 
train and deploy just one Border Patrol agent. The Subcommittee on 
Management Investigations and Oversight plans to hold another hearing 
on Border Patrol agent training costs in its capacity next Tuesday. It 
is my hope that the findings from this hearing will be considered by 
the House and Senate conferees on this bill to improve the way DHS 
recruits and trains Border Patrol agents.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes 
to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), 
the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.
  Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman 
giving me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2638. This legislation 
goes a long way to meeting the Nation's homeland security needs. It 
also provides funding in a number of areas at the Department of 
Homeland Security that have repeatedly been shortchanged.
  Specifically, the bill before us today provides DHS with $36.3 
billion, a $2.1 billion increase over the President's request. 
Additionally, H.R. 2638 addresses many of the areas identified in the 
authorization bill that the Committee on Homeland Security developed.
  The House overwhelmingly approved the authorization bill in early 
May. At the same time, it also is shaped by many of the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission, as well as programmatic changes called for in 
H.R. 1, legislation that I authored and that passed the House in 
January on a bipartisan basis.

                              {time}  1545

  For instance, this bill includes $78 million to double the amount of 
cargo screened on passenger aircraft. This would put TSA on the path of 
inspecting 100 percent of cargo, a key provision in H.R. 1.
  Chairman Price is to be commended for producing a bill that makes the 
homeland more secure, especially given the tight budget constraints. We 
all know that to get border security right, we need to put more trained 
``boots on the ground.'' H.R. 2638 provides funding for 3,000 
additional Border Patrol agents to bring the number of agents to 17,819 
by the end of the fiscal year.
  It also makes some major enhancements to the operations of the 
Department. It mandates that all grants and contracts can only be used 
for projects that comply with Davis-Bacon. It also allows State and 
local governments to set chemical security rules that are stronger than 
those issued by the Federal Government. And it sets information 
protection standards for vulnerability and security plans for chemical 
facilities.
  I support this bill and urge its passage.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland 
Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank the distinguished ranking member and chairman of 
the subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a tremendous irony that is 
happening here in the Capitol Building today. In the other body, the 
President of the United States has come over to lobby for an 
immigration bill and the other body is considering this. Yet we are 
debating a homeland security bill where we have had Republicans come 
down to the floor who say it's too expensive, that it's spending too 
much money, but if you took this times four on an annual basis for 5 
years, you couldn't begin to meet the standards that are in the Senate 
bill. We have people like Mr. Rogers of Kentucky pointing out that 
we're mandating Homeland Security to go check everybody in these 
detention centers but without any money for it. Unless your intention 
is complete and pure amnesty, how would you do that if you don't fund 
programs?
  Mr. Rogers of Alabama pointed out that we don't have a realistic 
program for training Border Patrol, that it's costing too much. Yeah. 
Well, how are we going to ramp this up two or three times if we don't 
have money to do the Border Patrol people?
  This bill is an advertisement, a walking billboard for the gaping 
holes in the bill of the other body. On pages 12 and 13 of this bill, 
and I agree with all these criticisms as we worked through our 
subcommittee, it says that they have to define activities, milestones 
and costs of implementing the program for the Secure Border Initiative. 
You mean they don't have that? You mean they're promising that we're 
going to have a secure border and they don't even have the cost 
estimates? Yes, that's correct.
  Number 2 here on page 12 says, demonstrate how the activities will 
further the objectives of it and have a multi-year strategic plan. You 
mean they don't have a multi-year strategic plan? No, they don't.
  Identify funding and staffing. You mean they haven't done that?
  Describe how the plan addresses security needs at the northern 
border. They don't even have the date set for when they're going to 
develop a plan for the northern border, yet we're debating a bill in 
the other body that says that we're supposedly securing our border?
  On page 37, it says, complete the schedule for the full 
implementation of a biometric exit program or certification that such 
program is not possible within 5 years. Well, I've talked to US-VISIT. 
They haven't even been talked to about it. Of course they can't meet 5 
years. We're talking 10 years minimum.
  What are they debating over in the other body? When the American 
public looks at what's happening in the Capitol Building on the same 
day and we're passing an appropriations bill that has theoretically 
looking at a biometric exit maybe in the next 5 years and the other 
body is acting like it's done, what's going on here?

[[Page 15482]]

  On page 59, there's a direct challenge to the question of our 
matching system. Now, the other day we had somebody with TB who had the 
warning on the screen, one we actually caught and we released him. But 
what we have is a question of are our lists even valid and there are 
restrictions on that.
  Other parts of the bill are actually going to delay the 
implementation of the fence by saying that, for example, 75 percent of 
the land in Arizona is actually either government-owned, Native-
American-owned, it's a wilderness area, it's a range; and it says we 
have to work out each of those things before we can put any fence in.
  Another part of the bill says we have to work with State and local 
governments in their areas. How in the world can the other body be 
making these promises when this bill points out the gaping holes?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr. 
Langevin.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to say 
that I rise in strong support of the FY 2008 Department of Homeland 
Security appropriations bill. I want to begin by commending Chairman 
Price's leadership in crafting a measure that will provide an 
additional $2.1 billion above the President's request and fill many of 
our remaining security gaps.
  As chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emerging 
Threats, Cybersecurity and Science and Technology, I am particularly 
pleased that this bill incorporates language I worked on to strengthen 
chemical security by allowing State and local governments to set 
chemical safety rules that are stronger than Federal mandates.
  Further, this legislation incorporates an additional $307 million for 
aviation security, an area the 9/11 Commission highlighted as a 
priority. This bill will allow TSA to install vital explosive detection 
systems at commercial airports nationwide and will double the amount of 
cargo screened on passenger aircrafts.
  This bill also takes the critical step of lifting the cap on TSA 
airport screeners, a provision which is of tremendous importance to 
T.F. Green Airport in my district.
  In addition, H.R. 2638 incorporates robust funding to strengthen 
border protection, including $8.8 billion to fund an additional 3,000 
Border Patrol agents for FY08.
  Finally, this legislation will help our first responders who place 
their lives on the line each and every day by restoring funding to the 
local law enforcement terrorism prevention program and the assistance 
to firefighter grants program.
  Of course, no appropriations measure is perfect and this bill is no 
exception. I am especially disappointed with the inadequate funding 
level for R&D for cybersecurity. Cybersecurity poses potentially 
devastating threats to our Nation's critical infrastructure, and I hope 
we can improve the bill in this area. I have a later amendment to that 
effect that I hope to discuss with the chairman.
  Overall, however, this is an excellent bill. I again want to commend 
the chairman and the committee for their outstanding work on this 
measure. It provides support to many critical programs, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).
  Mr. CUELLAR. I want to thank, Mr. Chairman, Chairman David Price and 
Ranking Member Harold Rogers for the leadership and bipartisan work 
that they have done in this bill.
  I rise in support of this Homeland Security appropriations bill 
because I am a Member who represents part of the U.S.-Mexico border and 
this is strong on homeland security.
  One of the things I would like to emphasize is that it allows input 
from the local communities. I think before a fence is put, that I think 
it's very, very important that we get the input of the local county 
officials, city officials, the business sector before any sort of fence 
is put in there.
  The second part of it is we're doing a lot to help Border Patrol, but 
I think it's also important to provide incentives for customs officers; 
and by giving them law enforcement officer status, that will improve 
the Department of Homeland Security to recruit and retain those 
officers.
  The last point is the criminal alien program. By providing extra 
funding, the $50 million to make sure that we contact the local jails, 
this is important to make sure that we deport anybody who is in one of 
the local jails and move them out.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the leadership you have provided.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has 6\1/2\ minutes. The gentleman from 
Kentucky has 6 minutes.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the chairman very much, and I thank 
the ranking member for their work.
  I want to point out particularly in the interest of our subcommittee 
on the authorizing committee, chairwoman of the Transportation Security 
and Critical Infrastructure, is the importance of the added amount of 
dollars for the Transportation Security Administration, a figure that 
is $307 million above the 2007 request, $6.62 billion. I am hoping that 
that means that we will begin to look at the entire operations of 
airports, to ensure that the grounds, the back side of the airport as 
well, are as safe as the front side, that we will be able to screen all 
of the employees that come on the airport grounds.
  I am very happy to see that the port security grants are there, 
representing Houston and the Port of Houston. Lastly, let me say that I 
hope we will be able to work together on ensuring that when we have 
outreach and security training that we include the neighborhoods 
surrounding the items that may generate the kind of nonsecure incident 
that may occur. We must provide security for neighborhoods.
  I hope that we will pass this bill and add the issue of securing 
neighborhoods to the bill.
   Mr. Chairman, September 11, 2001, is a day that is indelibly etched 
in the psyche of every American and in the minds of many throughout the 
world. Much like the unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 
1941, September 11 is a day that will live in infamy. And as much as 
Pearl Harbor changed the course of world history by precipitating the 
global struggle between totalitarian fascism and representative 
democracy, the transformative impact of September 11 in the course of 
American and human history is indelible. September 11 was not only the 
beginning of the global war on terror, but moreover, it was the day of 
innocence lost for a new generation of Americans.
  Since that catastrophic day, I have put the protection of our 
homeland at the forefront of my legislative agenda. I believe that our 
collective efforts as Americans will all be in vain if we do not 
achieve our most important priority: the security of our Nation. 
Accordingly, I became then and continue to this day to be an active and 
engaged member of the Committee on Homeland Security, and chairwoman of 
the Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection Subcommittee.
  Our Nation's collective response to the tragedy of September 11 
exemplified what has been true of the American people since the 
inception of our Republic--in times of crisis, we come together and 
always persevere. Despite the depths of our anguish on the preceding 
day, on September 12 the American people demonstrated their compassion 
and solidarity for one another as we began the process of response, 
recovery, and rebuilding. We transcended our differences and came 
together to honor the sacrifices and losses sustained by the countless 
victims of September 11. Let us honor their sacrifices by passing H.R. 
2638, which funds the important work of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  The Homeland Security Appropriations bill makes significant strides 
forward toward implementing the suggestions of the 9/11 Commission 
report, as well as addressing the most pressing security issues that 
we, as Americans, face. In particular, new emphasis has been placed on 
port, rail, and transit security; on the need to support state and 
local efforts to prevent and respond to terrorism threats

[[Page 15483]]

and natural disasters; on aviation security; and on border and 
immigration security.
  Earlier in this Congress, we passed H.R. 1684, the Department of 
Homeland Security Authorization Act for 2008. This legislation included 
many significant provisions I ensured were incorporated either into the 
base bill or through amendments at the full committee markup, and I am 
pleased that my amendments are reflected in H.R. 2638, making 
appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2008. 
These amendments were designed to strengthen and streamline management, 
organizational, personnel, and procurement issues at the Department to 
facilitate execution of its homeland security mission. Among these was 
an amendment to strip the Department's authority to develop a personnel 
system different from the traditional GS schedule Federal model, known 
as MAX-HR. In a number of critical ways, the personnel system 
established by the Homeland Security has been a litany of failure, and 
my amendment repealed a personnel system that eviscerated employee due 
process rights and placed in serious jeopardy the agency's ability to 
recruit and retain a workforce capable of accomplishing its critical 
missions.
  I also worked with Chairman Thompson to incorporate into H.R. 1684 
language authorizing Citizen Corps and the Metropolitan Medical 
Response System programs to strengthen emergency response and recovery 
efforts. The Citizen Corps Program is a critical program within the 
Department of Homeland Security that engages the community in emergency 
preparedness through public education and outreach, training, and 
volunteer service. My language ensured that funding will enable local 
Citizen Corps Councils to more adequately provide education and 
training for populations located around critical infrastructure.
  Today, we are here on the floor to ensure that the department 
entrusted with protecting the security of our Nation is adequately 
funded. I believe that H.R. 2638 does exactly that, while also 
requiring specific new accountability and management reforms related to 
contracting, procurement, and competition. These reforms serve to 
ensure that American taxpayers get the greatest possible value for the 
money they provide.
  H.R. 2638 provides $4.52 billion in funding for First Responder and 
Port Security Grant Programs. This figure is $1.97 billion above the 
President's request, and $863 million above the 2007 funding level. 
Even though homeland security costs continue to rise, funding levels 
for these grants have been cut every year since their inception in 
2004. These funds are used for grants to train first responders, aid 
preparedness in high threat communities, and protect critical 
infrastructure.
  This bill also provides $6.62 billion for the Transportation Security 
Administration, a figure that is $307 million above 2007 funding and 
$219 million above the President's request. This funding will be used 
for a number of key programs, including explosive detection systems to 
protect commercial aircraft, increased and expanded air cargo explosive 
screening for passenger aircraft, and a secure flight certification 
program requiring the Administrator of TSA to certify that no security 
risks are raised by TSA's Secure Flight plans that would limit 
screening of airline passenger names only against a subset of the full 
terrorist watch list.
  Additionally, this legislation appropriates significant funds for 
efforts to secure America's borders: $8.8 billion is provided for 
customs and border protection, including border security fencing and 
other tactical infrastructure, as well as 3,000 additional border 
security agents. The committee mark adds $27 million for 250 additional 
Customs and Border Patrol officers for commercial operations and 
Customs Trade Partnership against Terrorism validation, verifying that 
``trusted shippers'' have in place necessary security measures, as 
mandated in the SAFE Port Act. Additionally, $4.8 billion is 
appropriated for immigrations and custom enforcement, including the 
Federal Protective Service, a figure which is $322 million above 2007 
and $15 million above the President's request.
  This appropriations bill also funds a number of other crucial 
programs. It provides $272 million for infrastructure protection, $32 
million above the President's request and $44 million above 2007 
funding, to be used to identify critical infrastructure, and assess 
security vulnerabilities.
  Additionally, $685 million, $17 million above the President's request 
and $150 million above 2007, is appropriated for FEMA management, 
including funding for regional offices responsible for assisting state 
and local communities prepare for and respond to disasters. This money 
will fund the necessary improvements to FEMA's management operations, 
whose weaknesses were laid bare in the shamefully catastrophic response 
to Hurricane Katrina. This bill provides a further $1.7 billion to 
assist State and local governments following a declared disaster or 
emergency, and $120 million for projects that reduce the risks 
associated with disasters.
  In conclusion, I stand here remembering those who still suffer, whose 
hearts still ache over the loss of so many innocent and interrupted 
lives. My prayer is that for those who lost a father, a mother, a 
husband, a wife, a child, or a friend will in the days and years ahead 
take comfort in the certain knowledge that they have gone on to claim 
the greatest prize, a place in the Lord's loving arms.
   Mr. Chairman, the best way to honor the memory of those lost in the 
inferno of 9/11, is to do all we can to ensure that it never happens 
again. The best way to do that is to bolster the efficacy, 
accountability, and our oversight over the Department of Homeland 
Security, which we created in the aftermath of 9/11 to protect and 
preserve our Nation which we all hold so dear. I encourage all my 
colleagues to vote for this legislation, and to ensure that the 
Department of Homeland Security can continue its important work 
protecting our homeland from all manner of threats.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, providing our police forces, firefighters, 
emergency medical service personnel, and public health personnel with 
the resources they need to effectively confront and overcome the 
threats posed by terrorism, natural disasters, and other emergencies 
requires our continued commitment and dedication. Our first responders 
work tirelessly to protect and aid victims of disasters across our 
country. It's our responsibility to make sure they have the support 
necessary to perform their jobs.
  The dedicated men and women who serve the people of California's 6th 
District understand the importance of adequate homeland security 
resources. Each day, ships arrive to dock in ports throughout the Bay 
Area, commuters travel across the Golden Gate Bridge and the Richmond-
San Rafael Bridge, and travelers fly all over the world. In order to 
best utilize the well-trained first responders in my District, we need 
to enhance the security of the Bay Area's waterways, expand our ability 
to better prepare for disasters, and improve our ability to mitigate 
their effects once they occur.
  In 2004, Congress provided $4.92 billion in grants for port security 
and our first responders. Since then, the Bush Administration and the 
last Republican Congress cut funding for these programs every year, 
despite the fact that the costs of preparing for new homeland security 
threats have steadily increased. The President has continued to deny 
the importance of sufficiently funding our first responders by asking 
for only $2.55 billion for these grant programs this year.
  We cannot expect local communities to be the first to respond to an 
emergency unless we give them the resources to do so. Additionally, we 
cannot assure safe passage for those traveling into our country, nor 
that the containers transported aboard the airplanes and ships do not 
conceal weapons of mass destruction unless we provide adequate funds 
toward improving the safety and security of both our ports and our 
airlines.
  Fortunately, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill for Fiscal 
Year 2008 represents an important step in remedying past failures to 
support our first responders and to strengthen our national security. 
This bill provides $4.52 billion for first responder and port security 
grant programs, $1.97 billion above President's request and $863 
million above the total these programs received in Fiscal Year 2007. 
Specifically, it provides $800 million for firefighter assistance 
grants, $800 million for urban security grants, and $400 million for 
port facilities and infrastructure security grants. This bill also 
eliminates the cap on the number of federal airport screeners that the 
Transportation Security Administration can employ, which will help to 
improve security at airports nationwide.
  In addition to funding measures to address our country's most 
pressing security vulnerabilities, the Homeland Security Appropriations 
bill also increases funding for our country's Disaster Relief Fund to 
$1.7 billion in order to assist state and local governments following a 
declared disaster or emergency and provides $230 million to modernize 
over 100,000 flood maps used to determine rates for the National Flood 
Insurance Program. Additionally, this important piece of legislation 
will require that all homeland security contracts will be awarded in an 
open, competitive process, ending the Bush Administration's practice of 
awarding large-scale contacts to companies with political connections 
to the White House. Furthermore, this bill will make sure that all 
funds allocated in this bill can only be used for projects that comply 
with the Davis-Bacon mandate, requiring that federal contractors pay

[[Page 15484]]

workers no less than the local prevailing wage.
  Securing our homeland demands a strong partnership between the 
federal government, state governments, and local communities, and I 
commend the Democratic leadership and the members of the Appropriations 
Committee for their diligence in working to strengthen our homeland 
security. By allocating our country's resources to where they are most 
needed, we will be able to better prepare for and respond to disasters 
that that threaten the safety of the American people.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
Congressional Record designated for that purpose. Those amendments will 
be considered read.
  The Chair wants to make clear that the Committee is considering this 
bill under the 5-minute rule. Amendments are in order when the 
appropriate paragraph is read. If Members wish to offer an amendment in 
a timely fashion, Members should rise and orally seek recognition when 
the appropriate paragraph is read.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 2638

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department of 
     Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2008, and for other purposes, namely:

            TITLE I--DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

            Office of the Secretary and Executive Management

       For necessary expenses of the Office of the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security, as authorized by section 102 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 112), and executive 
     management of the Department of Homeland Security, as 
     authorized by law, $102,930,000: Provided, That not to exceed 
     $40,000 shall be for official reception and representation 
     expenses.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Crowley:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $15,000,000)''.
       Page 2, line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $35,000,000)''.
       Page 39, line 14, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 5, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.
       Page 40, line 8, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $50,000,000)''.

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, Representatives Fossella, 
Matsui, Garrett, and I are offering an amendment to increase by $50 
million the funding for the high-threat, high-density urban area 
program. If passed, our amendment would ensure that the program 
receives a total of $850 million in fiscal year 2008.
  As many of you know, this initiative, also referred to as the Urban 
Area Security Initiative, is the only homeland security initiative 
specifically targeted to assist the cities and States most vulnerable 
to a terror attack.
  The Urban Area Security Initiative was created by myself and my 
fellow New Yorker, Representative Fossella, in the months following the 
attack of 9/11. Its creation was a bipartisan effort, and it continues 
to be a bipartisanly supported program. Specifically, I want to thank 
Representative Price, chairman of the Homeland Security appropriations 
subcommittee, and the Democratic majority of the Homeland Security 
authorization committee for their hard work and dedication to the urban 
area initiative and to keeping Americans safe. Both of these committees 
understand the threats that America faces, both here at home as well as 
abroad, and they are working to make the investments that we need to 
make in order to secure our Nation.
  Although the majority of this Congress understands the threats in the 
world that we face, I believe some of my colleagues do not fully 
understand them. There are some Members in this Chamber who oppose the 
urban area initiative and all homeland security grant initiatives, 
calling them, and I quote, revenue sharing, unquote, or secret 
earmarks. I think that's nonsense. Would my colleagues prefer we return 
to the pre-9/11 days? As someone who has known personal loss from that 
day, I for one do not want to.
  The chief role for the Federal Government is to protect its citizens 
from attack and the Urban Area Security Initiative, like many other of 
the important domestic security programs in this bill, help to 
accomplish this. While some on the other side may try to play cute 
games with words, our Nation's security is more important than word 
games or photo ops.
  I come from the State of New York where my hometown was hit and knows 
firsthand the act of terror. My own family knows firsthand the striking 
of terror. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me in strengthening 
the Urban Area Grant Initiative as a way to maintain our vigilance in 
the face of continuing threats against America that are both at home 
and abroad.

                              {time}  1600

  This amendment is about making targeted, smart and necessary 
investments to keep our country safe. The Urban Area Security 
Initiative works. It provides needed resources to the communities at 
greatest risk of an attack, and it helps to keep those who are 
defending us on our front lines of terror, our first responders, our 
fire fighters, EMTs, and police officers safe and protected.
  This initiative has been a success, and I urge my colleagues to 
support the Crowley-Fossella-Matsui-Garrett amendment so we can 
continue to make the right investments in the protection of our 
homeland.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the 
urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there 
is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country 
and all that need help.
  Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is 
increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up 
to $800 million just for the urban area grants.
  Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases 
from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already.
  Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to 
$400 million.
  And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire 
departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230 
million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant 
programs, particularly for the urban areas.
  I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any 
more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause.
  I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a 
terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill. 
This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770 
million for the urban area grants.
  The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security 
Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the 
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the 
Under Secretary for Management. The Office of

[[Page 15485]]

the Secretary and Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, 
or 14 percent.
  Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation, 
including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the 
Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of 
Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to 
support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights 
Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy 
Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the 
Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
  If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are 
carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could 
be compromised or largely defunded.
  The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the 
office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14 
percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million 
provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have 
already substantially reduced the request coming from the 
administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new 
headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less 
funding available for this new facility.
  So I reluctantly ask for a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, the Department of Homeland Security made significant 
changes to our homeland security effort. They announced that for the 
first time areas such as Sacramento, San Diego and Las Vegas were at 
risk of losing their UASI grant funds.
  Since learning of the changes to the UASI program, my colleagues and 
I have worked tirelessly to ensure that our most at-risk urban areas 
receive the funding they deserve. As a result, DHS has modified the 
UASI grant process. DHS's formula now includes more critical 
infrastructure such as dams and levees, and has also added a tiered 
system.
  While I am glad that my work has ensured that Sacramento and other 
at-risk urban areas are eligible to apply for UASI funding this year, I 
believe my work is not done.
  I have spent much of my time in the district working closely with 
local law enforcement and first responders of homeland security. I have 
seen firsthand the tremendous efforts to protect the millions of people 
living in the Sacramento area from a terrorist attack.
  In Sacramento, I had the honor of attending the opening of the 
Sacramento Regional Homeland Security and Training Center. The new 
center was built using a wide range of Federal homeland security 
funding, including UASI. The center will improve intelligence sharing 
by housing all levels of law enforcement in one facility. This is just 
further proof of the truly unparalleled regional cooperation among 
Sacramento's law enforcement and first responders.
  I have long been impressed by the local law enforcement and first 
responders in my community, and throughout the country. Now we need to 
make sure that Congress is giving them the necessary resources to do 
their job.
  And so my colleagues, Mr. Crowley, Mr. Fossella, Mr. Mr. Garrett and 
I have offered an amendment to add $50 million to the UASI grant 
program.
  While I commend the chairman and the ranking member for adding $30 
million to the program, I believe an additional $50 million is 
warranted. Our first responders and law enforcement tackle impossible 
tasks daily. This increased funding will help in pursuit of their 
mission, to keep our country safe and secure.
  Finally, I would like to add to what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) has said about the issue of revenue sharing. I, too, don't 
think this is an appropriate place for semantics. The point is, this 
grant program and the criteria for receiving funding is predicated on 
the assessment of risk and a community's vulnerability. I would argue 
that with the UASI program, the issue is not cost sharing but risk 
sharing. I think this is an appropriate role for the Federal Government 
in the post-9/11 world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in support of the Crowley-Matsui-Fossella-Garrett amendment. I 
want to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for their work 
on this legislation.
  Time after time we come to the floor to ensure that homeland security 
dollars are allocated on a reasonable and rational basis, and that is 
to protect the American people and those who come to our country.
  Time after time, we wake up and realize that places like New York 
City and other high-threat areas are the subject of potential terrorist 
attack. There are many, including myself, who believe that our homeland 
security dollars should be based on the threats and the vulnerabilities 
and the consequences that come with the potential; or, God forbid, an 
attack itself, as was the case, the catastrophic case, on 9/11.
  As has been mentioned, our amendment would add $50 million in funding 
for the high-risk, high-threat cities to fight terrorism. The 
additional funding would be directed to the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, which is the only homeland security grant program which 
distributes funding based on a risk-based formula, which is a key 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission.
  The President's budget on the underlying legislation funds UASI at 
about $800 million, $50 million short, we believe, of the all-time 
highest appropriation, which occurred in fiscal year 2005.
  Despite the fact that America has not been attacked since September 
11, our Nation is still at war with an evil enemy. Indeed, just a month 
ago, law enforcement captured four alleged terrorists on charges that 
they were plotting to blow up Kennedy Airport in New York City. Their 
plan was to top the attacks of the World Trade Center, to massacre more 
people, destroy more property, inflict more damage, and leave our city 
in ruins.
  The threat of terrorism remains very real, making it essential for 
cities that face the greatest risk to have the tools and resources they 
need to stop attacks before they occur. The amendment will help our 
first responders prepare, train and be ready to protect innocent 
Americans from acts of terrorism.
  I believe it will also provide greater consistency to UASI, which has 
been beset by funding fluctuations of hundreds of millions of dollars 
from year to year.
  It is clear that major cities like New York remain the center of the 
bull's-eye for terrorists. UASI helps us fight terrorism, and ensures 
our first responders have the equipment they need to protect the 
American people.
  In a way, just in the last couple of years, a number of attacks have 
been foiled thanks to the efforts of law enforcement and intelligence 
gathering, much of it because of the funding that has gone through 
programs like UASI. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we can keep having the 
news media focus on foiled terrorist plots rather than counting 
caskets.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York will be 
postponed.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 43 at 
the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman aware that the amendment was printed 
incorrectly?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order 
against the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without prejudicing the gentleman from North

[[Page 15486]]

Carolina's point of order, does the gentleman from California seek to 
correct the printing error?
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I am not aware of what the printing error 
is.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Parliamentarian advises the Chair there was a 
printing error, so the Clerk will report the amendment at the desk in 
lieu of amendment No. 43.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell

  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Campbell of California:
       In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $9,961,000)''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman from North Carolina not hear the 
amendment as read?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. No, I did not.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will be in order. The Clerk will reread 
the amendment.
  The Clerk read the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from North Carolina wish to continue 
to reserve a point of order?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of 
order.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have 
before us today would increase spending. When coupled with the 
supplemental bill that the President just signed a few weeks back, 
would increase spending in the area of homeland security by nearly 17 
percent. Now, perhaps people on the other side of the aisle have not 
noticed, but we have a deficit, a very large deficit in this country. 
And we still are adding to that deficit every year.
  Now, I think Members on the other side of the aisle have noticed this 
because they have talked about their PAYGO and other principles, that 
we won't be increasing spending without some way to pay for this. 
However, with this appropriations bill we are doing exactly that. We 
are increasing spending by billions of dollars, by 17 percent over last 
year's level, without paying for it in any way, without reducing 
spending anywhere else, which means that we are adding to the deficit 
because of the spending, the additional spending that is in this bill.
  Let me just give you a sense of what a 17 percent increase is. If 
someone outside of this building in the world is making $15 an hour, 
they would have to get a raise this year to $17.55 an hour in order for 
their income to keep pace with the spending increase in this bill.

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most of the people out there 
making $15 an hour, or any number you want, are not likely to see their 
bosses come in and say we want to give you a raise of 17 percent from 
$15 an hour to $17.55 an hour, not something that they are likely to 
see. But yet to keep and sustain this level of increase in spending, 
that's exactly what would have to happen or else we just take more and 
more and more money out of individuals' pockets so we can spend it 
here.
  Now, I'm sure that people on the other side in support of this bill 
are going to start to talk about how important this bill is to homeland 
security. Okay. We will have that debate over the next couple of days 
about what is in this bill, but what this amendment does is deal purely 
with bureaucracy. We're not dealing here with any program. We're not 
dealing here with officers in the field. We're not dealing here with 
equipment that's being used or computers or anything else for homeland 
security.
  What this amendment says is simply that the Office of the Secretary 
and Executive Management, the office of the Secretary, purely 
bureaucracy, gave the Secretary of Homeland Security and the people in 
that person's office, right now this bill gives them an 11 percent 
increase, when we're trying to get a deficit down, when we want to, at 
least some of us do, keep taxes low.
  What this bill says is you ought to be able to get by on what you had 
last year. It is not even proposing that we cut the spending of this 
bureaucracy, not even proposing that we take the Secretary's office and 
just their bureaucracy in there and cut it, but simply saying get by on 
the same amount of money you did last year. Now, how many people in 
America do that every day but somehow the bureaucracy in Homeland 
Security can't do that?
  And by doing that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $10 million. 
Now, maybe in a $3 trillion budget it doesn't sound like much, but $10 
million is still a lot of money. It's a lot of money to everybody out 
there. It's lot of money to me. It's a lot of money to you. And $10 
million and $10 million and $10 million and we will eventually get our 
spending down, and that, Mr. Chairman, is how we are going to eliminate 
this budget deficit and that's how we're going to do it without having 
the largest increase in taxes in American history, which the other side 
has proposed to do.
  And what is that tax increase for? It's for things like this, for 
things like taking a bureaucracy of people, sitting around doing phone 
calls and paper and saying we're going to give you an 11 percent raise. 
We should not be doing that, not in this environment and not in this 
bill.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that Members support this 
amendment, not feed the bureaucracy further and save the taxpayers $10 
million.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, it's the easiest thing in the world to come to this 
floor and to rail against bureaucracy, this abstract notion of cutting 
bureaucracy; but I think it's prudent to ask what exactly do these 
officials do and what is actually in the bill and why is it there. So 
let me try to get beyond just the symbolism of cutting bureaucracy and 
try to answer those very basic questions.
  First of all, let me say, I don't know where the figure 17 percent 
that the gentleman's using comes from. The increase in this bill over 
fiscal 2007 spending, counting the bill that we passed last year and 
the emergency spending incorporated in that bill, is 7\1/2\ percent. 
And if you include the emergency funding that we just added to the 2007 
bill, then the increase is 4 percent without the Katrina funding, and 
it is actually a cut of 7\1/2\ percent with the Katrina funding. So if 
you're using the 2007 bill as the baseline, those are the accurate 
numbers.
  Now, let's look at the front office of the Department of Homeland 
Security. The bill includes, sure enough, $923 million for Department 
operations, but that's less than the 2007 appropriation. It's less than 
the President requested by $73 million.
  The gentleman has focused on one aspect of front office operations, 
which is the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, and he wants 
to cut that by almost $10 million. But there are good reasons for that 
being increased while the overall front office expenses are being 
decreased.
  This appropriation, the one the gentleman has targeted, the one he 
has said is purely bureaucracy, included in that appropriation are the 
Secure Border Initiative office, which many Members on both sides of 
the aisle have a strong interest in; the policy office; the privacy 
office, which surely needs strengthening; the civil rights office, 
which surely needs strengthening; and the office of counter-narcotics 
enforcement, a critical function as well.
  And the bill isn't lavish even in this respect. It provides only 
enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the privacy 
and civil rights offices, where staffing levels are increased, and the 
policy office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID, a new 
program that requires some staffing up, and for the Committee on 
Foreign Investment of the United States, which, as every Member knows, 
we are trying to also strengthen.
  If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which will help to 
better ensure privacy, to better ensure civil rights protections, would 
not be funded. So let's get past the rhetoric about bureaucracy. Let's 
look at what

[[Page 15487]]

the appropriation actually does. I think if Members do, they will 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I join Chairman Price in his comments. I think that we come to the 
floor with two kinds of amendments, one that really tries to do 
something, that we believe in, and another just for grandstanding and 
for publicity.
  The gentleman speaks about a deficit and speaks about his side 
wanting to reduce the deficit. Let me just do a few seconds of history.
  When the last President left, we didn't have a deficit. We have a 
deficit now. Why? Because we were involved in a war and we were sent 
off to war when we should not be at all, and so we spend billions and 
billions and billions of dollars every week on a war that was built on 
lies and bad information, and now we try to get out of that war. And 
instead of getting out of it, we keep spending more, billions and 
billions and billions.
  And if you think this war deficit is a problem, wait till the boys 
and girls come home and we have to provide them the medical services 
that some people will want to cut. The deficit would only grow.
  Secondly, to be brief, the gentleman speaks about giving somebody a 
17 percent pay raise. Yet it was that side that refused to give some 
people a couple of pennies' increase in a minimum wage. So all of the 
sudden that side is very concerned about raising people's salaries to 
keep up with the needed expenses of surviving in this society, but they 
were not for giving some folks a minimum wage increase.
  So let's get it clear. Yes, there is a deficit, but this bill doesn't 
cause a deficit. The war is causing the deficit. The war on terror is 
causing the deficit. That's what this is about. This bill, in a very 
smart way, deals with some issues that we have to deal with.
  And, lastly, it is always easy to attack the bureaucrats. Everybody 
wants services, everybody wants something done, but nobody wants 
anybody in charge of providing those services. Somehow we expect a 
computer to run the agency and not have people actually doing the work.
  Let's be fair. Let's be honest when we come to the House floor. If we 
have an amendment that really has a message, present it. If we're just 
grandstanding, then we should have a disclaimer that says, and by the 
way, this is the reason that I'm on the House floor today.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I'd 
yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas. The gentleman from New York said that there were two types of 
amendments, one that tried to do something that you believe in and 
others that make statements.
  I would like to assure the gentleman from New York that I believe in 
this amendment, and I think a lot of people on this side of the aisle 
believe in this amendment because we believe that we need to start 
controlling costs in this government.
  And is this amendment all by itself going to do that? No, of course 
not, but it will begin the process of doing that, and in combination 
with a lot of other amendments like it, yes, it will start to control 
the cost of government, and, yes, I firmly believe in what this 
amendment is about, in spite of what the gentleman from New York 
suggested.
  The gentleman from North Carolina talked about numbers, and perhaps 
my numbers are incorrect, but this bill is now at $36.254 billion over 
and enacted last year $31.905 billion which is a 13.6 percent increase.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HENSARLING. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in the 
interest of the debate the rest of the day to have this straight, so I 
do appreciate the gentleman's yielding.
  It's true, the bill is at $36.3 billion. Last year's appropriation 
was $34.2 billion. That is counting the emergency spending that was 
enacted at the same time as the regular bill. That means this year's 
increase is 7\1/2\ percent. And then if you add the 2007 supplemental 
appropriations, which were just voted by the House, depending on 
whether you count the Katrina money or not, you either get a 4.2 
percent increase or a 7.5 percent decrease from the 2007 funding level.
  I appreciate the chance to clarify those numbers.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  To the gentleman from North Carolina, this is something I guess we'll 
probably need to work out as we go along because I'm not looking at 
increase over a baseline. We're looking at increase over actual enacted 
last year, and maybe we can compare notes. But my notes show that that 
actual last year was $31.905 billion, and then there was the 
supplemental which has been added on top of this bill itself.
  But in any event, one other thing the gentleman from North Carolina 
alluded to was that this amendment proposes to cut spending in this 
area in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. I want to 
make that clear. This is a definitional thing which we often have 
problems with in this House and in this building.
  What this amendment proposes to do is to leave the budget for the 
Office of Secretary and Executive Management equal to what it was in 
the prior fiscal year. That is not a cut. If you have $10 and I give 
you $10, I take away $10, give you back $10, that is not a cut. That is 
the same amount of money you had before. What this does do is it 
prevents the 11 percent increase that is in this bill.
  So let's make it very clear in vernacular that if I make $10 an hour 
and I want to make $11, if somebody gives me a raise to $10.50, it is 
still a raise; it is not a cut. And that's what is going on here.
  We are not proposing to cut this office. We are merely proposing to 
tell them, do continue your operations on the same amount of money that 
you did last year. I don't think that is a great leap to ask of what is 
clearly an element of the bureaucracy, in spite of the gentleman from 
North Carolina's admonitions that it is not.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this 
amendment, and I certainly support his amendment.
  In the big scope of the Federal budget perhaps the dollars are not 
large, but before we can really ever attack spending, we have to attack 
the culture of spending, and you have to lead by example.
  And why can't we ask people in the Federal Government, as we ask 
families all around the Nation, as our friends on the other side of the 
aisle have recently passed the single largest tax increase in history, 
they're expecting American families to somehow do more with less. Can't 
we expect a few of the administrators of this agency to somehow, 
somehow get by on the same amount of money they had last year?
  I encourage the support for this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to commend the gentleman from California for offering this 
amendment. I think that at the beginning of this first appropriations 
bill of the 110th Congress, which I might add is 1 month after the 
first appropriation bill that we, when we were in the majority last 
year, that we moved through the House. So the time is without a doubt 
getting late, but I commend the majority for finally bringing this to 
the floor.
  But I want to commend the gentleman from California because this is 
the type of amendment that sets the tone about what kind of 
responsibility we will bring to this House for all of our 
appropriations processes over the next number of weeks.

                              {time}  1630

  I want to commend the gentleman for this amendment. I appreciate the 
fact that he has identified an area where, yes, it's only $10 million, 
but $10 million in my area is a fair amount of

[[Page 15488]]

money. So I want to commend the gentleman for bringing the amendment to 
the floor.
  I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  To the gentleman from North Carolina, just to clarify again on these 
numbers, we agreed that it's $36.3 billion in this bill, and the number 
you threw out, $34.2 billion, I believe, was the President's budget 
proposal for this, and that the prior year enacted, 2007 enacted, was 
$31.9 billion.
  Do you have different numbers on that?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina for a response.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I am happy to clarify the situation.
  The 2007 appropriation, as enacted, was $34.2 billion. That includes 
the $31.9 billion that the gentleman cited, plus the emergency spending 
in that same bill, because as you well remember, we needed to address 
the border and immigration situation. So that was added to the bill.
  The spending in the 2007 bill was $34.2 billion, and we are 
increasing that by 7.5 percent, and then we have recently supplemented 
the appropriation. The 2007 spending now stands at $39.2 billion, and 
the 2008 bill is 7.5 percent less than that in nominal terms.
  If I may just say further, the gentleman referred to the way we do 
accounting around here. This is just straight nominal numbers. The 
departmental operations are cut--are cut--in our bill from 2007 levels 
by $1.2 million. They are cut from the President's request by $72 
million. It's not a matter of adjustments one way or the other for 
inflation; those are straightforward cuts.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman 
pointing out the increase by 7.5 percent. Again, I would like to just 
draw the House's attention to the fact that this may just be $9.5 
million, but as I mentioned, $9.5 million is a fair amount of money.
  I appreciate also the gentleman coming to the floor earlier and 
talking about broadening this debate. He talked about what he called 
the war deficit. He brought minimum wage into this debate, brought 
spending into this debate. That's a wonderful thing. Because, yes, 
that's what we're talking about. We are talking about spending hard-
earned taxpayer money. So no amount of money is too small to discuss 
and to bring light to.
  I would implore my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to, yes, 
look at the expansive nature of these appropriations bills, to look at 
the increase in the amount of money that this majority plans on 
spending over past Congresses.
  I also would ask my colleagues to look at the process. Because the 
debate has been expanded, I think it's an appropriate time to talk 
about the issue regarding earmarks, special projects. We have now a 
policy apparently in this House of Representatives, that allows the 
majority party or, actually, one Member of the majority party, to 
determine when he decides which earmark, which special project, 
warrants support by the entire House or warrants the opportunity to 
even have a vote on a special project.
  But can you have a vote on a specific special project? No, no. What 
we will have, our special projects that are the pet special projects of 
one individual, brought into a conference report, and no opportunity, 
no opportunity for any Member of this body to point out that, in fact, 
that ought to have a particular vote, that we ought to have individuals 
stand up.
  I support the amendment of the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  We do have some concerns on this side about the legislation put 
together, as we would have on any large bill that spends billions of 
dollars, but I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his 
fair work and his hard work on this legislation.
  With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank the gentleman from North 
Carolina.
  If I can refer to the gentleman, I believe I heard, and maybe we can 
sort this out, but I think that if you include the supplementals on 
both sides, that we went from $34.2 billion to $39.2 billion, which 
would be a 15.2 percent increase, perhaps not the 17 I said earlier, 
but in either event, frankly, whether it's 17 percent, 15 percent or 
the 13.6, if you leave both of the supplementals out, it's a lot of 
money. It's billions and billions and billions of dollars of increase.
  Some of that increase is a lot more than inflation, multiple times 
more than inflation, and it's a lot more than taking the growth in 
inflation and the growth in population and put it together. Most 
importantly, it's a lot more than personal income growth.
  That's something we need to look at, as we are looking at all these 
appropriations and all of these spending bills. Because if we increase 
spending faster than people's incomes are increasing in America, it is 
unsustainable over time unless you continue to take more and more and 
more of their hard-earned money away from them.
  Now, I know that's what many of you on the other side of the aisle 
want to do. But, A, we don't; and, B, even if you want to do it, 
eventually you'll run out of space. Eventually, you'll take it all if 
you increase at this kind of level.
  Once again, this amendment does not ask anybody to cut anything. It 
simply tells this one element, this one part of the bureaucracy in 
Homeland Security to do, get by and exist on the same amount of money 
that you had last year.
  I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague for his comments.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I felt compelled to say something after the gentleman from North 
Carolina and the gentleman from New York talked about bureaucracy. It's 
easy to pick on bureaucracy. I ask any Member of this House that has 
talked to any constituencies, whether it's about a Social Security 
issue, a veterans' issue, Department of Homeland Security, FAA issue, 
to talk about it, and they will tell you that they had trouble with the 
bureaucracy, that they were having to call your office because they had 
trouble with the bureaucracy. This government has grown at a pace way 
beyond our population.
  As we know, once somebody gets in a position in government, what they 
try to do is to expand that position, to get another secretary, to get 
an assistant secretary, an executive secretary, and so forth, because 
they are trying to build their power base.
  So, yes, you ask any citizen that was affected by Katrina on the gulf 
coast if we have too much bureaucracy in our government, because a lot 
of those individuals down there that were hurt by that hurricane have 
yet to get assistance, or the full assistance they need, because of the 
bureaucracy in Washington D.C. So don't say that the bureaucracy is 
just something easy to pick on.
  Let me say this. The gentleman from California is very earnest in 
wanting to get $10 million. Now, $10 million may not sound like a lot 
to a lot of people, but it's a lot of money. I will tell the gentleman 
from New York that commented on what was causing a deficit, yes, the 
war is causing the deficit, some part of the deficit. But what is 
causing the deficit, this is a moment of truth, is overspending, 
overspending.
  Yes, the public did speak last November, and what they said is, you 
Republicans who have always stood up and said, government is too big 
and we have too much spending. Yet we were the ones up here increasing 
the size of government and spending too much money, it's time for us to 
reclaim the brand of being fiscal conservatives and watching after the 
taxpayers' dollars. That's exactly what this amendment from the 
gentleman from California does.
  Our base, the Republican base, does not like to spend money or does 
not like to see government grow, because we think that the 
entrepreneurial spirit is that we can take care of ourselves

[[Page 15489]]

better than the government can take care of us. The unfortunate side 
for our base is that the majority base thinks that the government can 
do a better job of looking after people than people themselves.
  So that's the dilemma that we find ourselves in, that we have got one 
side that's trying to reclaim their brand, trying to make people 
realize that we really are who we say we are and doing the things that 
we are supposed to be doing in cutting the size of government and 
reducing spending. The other side is saying, here we are and here we 
are to take care of you.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California will be 
postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Kucinich

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich:
       Page 2, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $500,000)''.
       Page 38, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $500,000)''.

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment directs FEMA to conduct a 
comprehensive study of the increase in demand for FEMA's emergency 
response and disaster relief services as a result of weather-related 
disasters associated with global warming.
  It will tell us what FEMA can expect 5, 10, and 20 years from now. 
The assessment will include an analysis of the budgetary material and 
manpower implications of meeting such increased demand for FEMA 
services. We have been warned. We have been warned that we should 
expect to see more extreme weather, like severe rain storms and 
snowstorms that can come in an El Nino season.
  We have been warned that we will see stronger hurricanes and 
hurricanes with more total rainfall. We have been warned to expect heat 
waves. We have been told to expect melting glaciers, rising sea levels 
swallowing low-lying land in places like Bangladesh, Florida, the gulf 
coast and Manhattan.
  We have been warned that rising temperatures will force infectious 
diseases to move north or upwards in elevation to expose previously 
unexposed and, therefore, defenseless populations. We have been warned 
that droughts will intensify and lengthen, straining already strained 
water supplies and bring crop failures. Droughts also place those areas 
at greater risk for wildfires.
  These warnings come from the most respected, most credible, most 
well-studied scientists this world has to offer. This was most recently 
affirmed by the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change. Turns out, they were right.
  The 11 hottest years on record have occurred since 1994. Two of the 
three last hurricane seasons have broken records. The polar ice cap is 
melting even faster than our previous best estimates. Greenland's ice 
is melting. Permafrost in Alaska is thawing, causing homes to crumble. 
Residents of low-lying nations like Tuvalu have applied for entry into 
other countries as climate refugees and have been denied.
  West Nile virus from Africa has taken a toehold in the U.S. The 
European heat wave of 2003 killed well over 15,000 people. Carbon 
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are at levels scientists say 
have not occurred in 400,000 years.
  These effects are directly in line with the warnings we received from 
the scientific community. Even though it is difficult to attribute all 
of these effects directly to climate change, some have been able to. A 
2006 article in the journal Nature blames half of the risk associated 
with the European heat on human-induced warming.
  The World Health Organization has estimated that 150,000 deaths every 
year can already be attributed to climate change.

                              {time}  1645

  Hurricane Katrina gave us another grim warning, telling us not only 
what we should expect, but showing us what happens if we're not 
prepared.
  Katrina showed us that when disasters hit, the most vulnerable among 
us become even more vulnerable because they lack the resources and 
access to cope. That was made clear as image after image of those hit 
the hardest were people of modest means and people of color.
  In fact, in the Chicago heat wave of 1995, African Americans were 
twice as likely to die as Caucasians. The elderly, many of whom could 
not afford air conditioning, made up most of the victims.
  Katrina showed us that disasters are expensive. We have so far spent 
about $77 billion on disaster assistance for Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma 
and Rita alone. Insurance companies whose very existence rely on their 
predictive abilities have seen enough to make them drop certain 
coverage and to conduct campaigns to try to reduce our greenhouse gas 
emissions. Reinsurance companies in particular, like Swiss Re, have 
taken a leadership role in promoting action on climate change.
  Katrina has showed us that an unprepared FEMA costs time, money and 
ultimately lives. If past is prologue, we have an obligation to look at 
the future in order to prepare. We have to allow FEMA to take into 
account the realities of the challenges that await them.
  At this moment we can still choose among policy options. We can deal 
with the effects of climate change in one of two ways. We can 
acknowledge the extraordinary challenges before us and prepare for them 
voluntarily and aggressively, but steadily, predictably and 
controllably, or we can continue to create policy as if there's no 
problem and wait for the severe weather to control our pace of 
adaptation. The choice is ours.
  Let FEMA prepare for the task ahead. Vote ``yes'' on the Kucinich 
amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the 
gentleman for his eloquence, both about the potential threat of global 
warming and what that may mean for emergencies that we have to deal 
with in the future, and also for the need to repair and rebuild FEMA so 
that we have a nimble, responsive agency that can respond to all kinds 
of disasters all over this country.
  I understand that the gentleman will perhaps be willing to withdraw 
this amendment. I hope that he will do that, but I want to assure him 
that we understand what he's focusing on, and that we will work with 
him as we go to conference to make sure that FEMA has the resources 
that it needs. We have beefed up FEMA's resources a good deal in this 
bill.
  Now, on the question of who should be studying global warming and 
assessing its future impact, there are legitimate questions, I believe, 
as to whether FEMA is the agency that's best equipped to do this. Other 
agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
NOAA, do have expertise in this area, but if that expertise is not 
being translated into practical preparation, and if there's not 
adequate coordination between NOAA and the research operations and the 
operational agencies, then that obviously is a concern that needs to be 
addressed. I appreciate the Member from Ohio's raising that concern, 
and promise that we will work with you.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I will.
  Mr. KUCINICH. First of all, I want to thank the chairman for his 
willingness to work to address this issue of the need for an increase 
in demand for FEMA's emergency response services. And I think that, as 
the bill moves to conference, that it could be a service to people in 
all those areas which are likely to be assailed by adverse weather 
conditions to make sure that FEMA understands that there's going to be 
greater demand on their services.
  And if the gentleman, as you have indicated, is willing to take this 
issue up

[[Page 15490]]

in conference on behalf of all of us, I certainly would be willing to 
withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the requisite 
number of words on this issue.
  The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has just been withdrawn.
  Mr. CARTER. I believe I have the right to object.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time for objection has passed.
  If the gentleman just wishes to strike the requisite number of 
words----
  Mr. CARTER. Okay. I'll wait for the bill.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Reichert:
       Page 2 line 9, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced by 
     $1,000,000)''.
       Page 2 line 16, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $11,000,000)''.
       Page 4 line 24, after the dollar amount insert ``(increased 
     by $10,000,000)''.

  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Homeland 
Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, I rise today to offer an 
amendment that would restore a cut to the Department of Homeland 
Security's intelligence function.
  This bill cuts the analysis and security's intelligence functions. 
This bill cuts $8 million from that account from last year, and this 
bill cuts the analysis and operations account by $8 million from last 
year, and is $23 million below the administration's request.
  I simply do not understand why we would be cutting the intelligence 
funding. Let's be clear about this. Intelligence is what we use to 
prevent terrorist attacks. Good intelligence helped prevent the recent 
plots against Fort Dix and against John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. 
The Department of Homeland Security intelligence had a role in both of 
these cases, and, in fact, in the JFK plot the Department of Homeland 
Security was sharing classified intelligence with the private sector 
for more than a year before the threat was made public.
  My amendment attempts to strike an appropriate balance between 
response, recovery and prevention. This legislation, in its current 
form, includes cuts to intelligence and yet significantly increases 
response and recovery programs.
  While all are important to homeland security, I think we can all 
agree that it is better to prevent a terrorist attack than be forced to 
respond to one. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this 
bill would reduce the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence 
support for border security, terrorist travel, and human smuggling. It 
would severely impact the Department's ability to assess these threats, 
and would harm their efforts to focus on homegrown terrorism and 
violent extremism within the United States.
  My amendment simply adds $10 million for analysis operations to that 
account to help restore the Department's intelligence functions. This 
would eliminate the cut and provide a modest $2 million increase from 
last year.
  The terrorists only have to be right once, but to defend ourselves, 
we have to be right every time. Intelligence is the most sound 
investment we can make as a Nation to prevent terrorism.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, although I want 
to heartily endorse the emphasis he's given to the importance of the 
intelligence and analytical functions.
  Perhaps I can best begin by making an observation about this bill as 
a whole. We have closely examined the status of the programs that we're 
funding, their history of drawing down funds, their unspent balances, 
their ability to spend the money that has been requested. And so when 
the gentleman sees a reduction in funding of the sort that he sees in 
this account, it would be a big mistake to read that as a de-emphasis 
of this function or some kind of judgment that this function is not 
important. We think it's highly important. But we do have some 
observations that are included in the committee report.
  I refer the gentleman to page 23 of the report about the rationale 
behind the, we hope, temporary reductions that we've written into this 
bill. It's a short section. Let me just read it. ``The Committee has 
reduced the funding level for intelligence and analysis below the 
amounts requested. The Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence 
and Analysis carried over significant unobligated balances at the end 
of fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace of 
obligations during the current fiscal year.''
  That is not something we're pleased about, but the best way to create 
some pressure and some incentives to correct this situation, to get 
this function moving, is what the committee has done.
  The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $10 million the amounts 
provided to the managerial function and the Border Patrol at DHS and 
reallocate those funds for the intelligence functions.
  But as I said, at the end of 2006 the intelligence program had $50 
million remaining unspent, largely because it was unable to hire the 
staff at the rate at which it was planned. There's been no indication 
from the intelligence managers of the Department that the pace of 
hiring has increased, so we fully expect the programs will end this 
year with significant balances unspent. It's simply imprudent to keep 
appropriating more money when those sizable balances remain unspent.
  Now, as for the offset, briefly, the amendment proposes to reduce 
funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1 
million, or 1 percent. That, as we've said earlier, would nip in the 
bud our efforts to better ensure privacy and to enforce civil rights. 
That's the reason there's a slight increase in that function. And the 
gentleman's amendment would remove that, as well as reduce funding for 
the office of the Under Secretary for Management, which is tied to the 
need to consolidate DHS operations in a new headquarters.
  So, in the other aspect of the amendment, perhaps even more 
dangerously, the amendment proposes to reduce CBP salaries, Border 
Patrol salaries and expenses, by $6 million. That could generate 
significant vulnerabilities in the Border Patrol's ability to ensure 
the security of the northern and southern borders.
  So the offsets are not good, and the overall increase would, in all 
likelihood, remain unspent.
  So for those reasons, and certainly not for any lack of concern about 
intelligence and analytical operations, I do reluctantly oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address the Chamber and also to commend the 
gentleman for his excellent amendment.
  As the gentleman knows, I come from, hail from the great State of New 
Jersey where we are all too well aware of why we are here on the floor 
tonight discussing the issue of homeland security. My district is in 
the shadows of the Twin Towers.
  I commend the gentleman for his opening comments when he stated that 
we need a balance between response, recovery and prevention. I would 
suggest, if we're going to strike that balance, that we might want to 
tip that balance a little bit to the way of prevention.
  While as glad as my constituents are, immediately in the aftermath of 
9/11, of how tremendous the response was from people, not only from New 
York City, New Jersey, my State, the entire tristate area, but America 
in general to what happened on 9/11. That was the response.
  And as great as it was, the recovery after 9/11, and putting people's 
lives back in order as well, the thing that

[[Page 15491]]

most New Yorkers and all Americans would agree on is if we could have 
prevented 9/11 to occur in the first place, how much better that would 
have been.
  Now, we just had another incident in the State of New Jersey as well, 
I'm sure the gentleman knows, down in the southern part of the State 
with regard to several terrorists, this time homegrown terrorists 
trying to get into a U.S. military establishment and shoot up that 
establishment. In that case we did not have to look at that balance 
with regard to response or recovery because our government did such a 
phenomenal job in the area of prevention.
  And what does the gentleman's, his amendment do today? He addresses 
that point of prevention, trying to prevent another 9/11, trying to 
prevent another incident that could have occurred in the State of New 
Jersey and the loss of life there.
  And what does the amendment do? It tries to restore the $10 million 
cut that would have occurred should this amendment not occur.
  Now, the other side of the aisle, on this amendment and a previous 
amendment, and I presume for the rest of this evening as well, they 
will be coming to the floor defending the bureaucracy. They will be 
coming to the floor defending the bureaucrats. They will be coming to 
the floor defending the status quo.
  I would suggest that we do not want to defend the status quo. We want 
to improve the situation.

                              {time}  1700

  The gentleman's amendment will do that by putting the resources where 
they should be, in intelligence, which is prevention so that we should 
never have such an incident in this country again.
  I commend the gentleman and encourage my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle to support this amendment when it later comes to the floor 
for a vote.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I would like to yield to my friend from Washington, someone that is a 
professional in law enforcement (Mr. Reichert).
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  I want to just respond to a couple of points that were made. Part of 
this budget is classified, and we can say one thing, though, in open 
session, and that is that the Department of Homeland Security disagrees 
with your assessment. For instance, your report states that the Office 
of Operations and Coordination has significant unobligated balances. 
According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of June 7 of this 
year, OPS has obligated 63 percent of fiscal year 2007's funding and 
99.9 percent of fiscal year 2006 carry-over funding.
  So let's just be real about this bill. If you are serious about 
intelligence, why are we cutting it by $8 million over last year's 
budget, $23 million over the suggested administration's budget?
  This is what it does: It will reduce our ability to deploy personnel 
to the southwest and northern borders to support border enforcement 
efforts. It will reduce our ability to identify and assess threats to 
the security of the Nation's land, air, and sea borders. It will reduce 
our ability to analyze the threat of homegrown terrorism and domestic 
terrorism. It will reduce our ability to provide an alternative 
perspective to terrorist threats. It will reduce our ability to collect 
intelligence and support those intelligence owners and operators of the 
Nation's critical infrastructure. And it will reduce our ability to 
analyze terrorist travel trends and methods.
  I have 33 years of law enforcement experience in the Seattle area, 
was the sheriff of Seattle before I came here, now serving in my second 
term in Congress. I understand the balance between response and 
prevention. I understand the balance of civil liberties and protection 
of the public against criminal activity. I understand the balance 
there. This bill puts this balance way out of whack.
  One million dollars taken from management in the Secretary's office, 
$11 million taken from the Under Secretary's office. They still receive 
a $79 million increase. The committee's recommendation in this report 
remains intact; therefore, civil liberty funding and privacy, 
counternarcotics funding levels remain intact. They are not part of our 
offsets. Also not a part of our offset is CBC.
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank 
the gentleman for offering the amendment.
  You want to listen to somebody that has expertise in this. And I 
don't think anybody has more expertise in intelligence than a local 
sheriff does, somebody that has been involved in trying to find some 
criminals. And the gentleman from Washington has certainly done that. 
He has brought his professionalism here to Washington. And I think it 
is good advice that the Members vote for this amendment and recognize 
that we are listening to somebody that has got the experience and not 
bureaucrats that think they know how to do a job and they have never 
actually even been in the field.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support my good friend 
from Washington's amendment. It is a good amendment because, as a 
sheriff, he knows, firsthand, homeland security. And what he also knows 
is the most important thing we can be doing in this time of war is 
funding our intelligence capabilities domestically and internationally. 
And what this legislation does is reduce our capacity to gather 
intelligence through this homeland security appropriation.
  Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague from Washington has offered 
is a very sensible thing. This bill actually has $23 million less in 
funding for intelligence resources than the President requested. And 
what my colleague does is restore the funding level to the prior year's 
funding for the intelligence-gathering resources of the Homeland 
Security Department.
  I think overall what we have to discuss as a Congress is whether or 
not we are going to fight an offensive war. Are we going to do the 
necessary things, the intelligence gathering that we need to do as a 
country and as a nation to make sure that we are safe and secure when 
we are dealing with these very complicated threats both internationally 
and domestically.
  We saw what has happened over the last few years with intelligence-
gathering capabilities that during the 1990s were decimated. Our 
intelligence-gathering capabilities were decimated. And what we have to 
do as a nation is make sure we have the proper funding so we don't have 
those threats, we don't have those scares, that we don't have that 
level of war here at home.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. 
I urge its adoption. And I think we can do this on a very bipartisan 
basis to ensure that we have a strong homeland and have the proper 
intelligence-gathering resources funded by this United States Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague from the 
great State of New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
yielding.
  And I just want to reiterate a point that you made at the end, and 
that is to take a brief look at history to see where our intelligence 
apparatus, if you will, has been in this country.
  I was going to step up to the floor a little earlier on a previous 
amendment when one of our colleagues from the other side of the aisle 
began to give a history as to the budget process and the deficits and 
the like, and I was going to say at that time, we really shouldn't be 
looking back on some of these issues. But I think you raised a point 
that we need to look back to, and it brings us to the point of 9/11 and 
why we got there in the first place. And that was, we went through a 
time, following the collapse of the ``evil empire,'' as Ronald Reagan 
called it, the Soviet Union, the breakup of the Soviet Union and the 
Eastern Bloc, the end of the so-called Cold War. And there were Members 
from the other side of the aisle in this House and the

[[Page 15492]]

other House, but specifically in this House who said, we do not need an 
intelligence apparatus in this country anymore.
  I remember one of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle said 
that we can even get rid of the CIA because we no longer need such an 
apparatus in a world free of the Soviet Union and the like. That was 
impetus during a previous administration, back during the Clinton 
administration.
  The dollars of investments were not made during that period of time, 
and what was wrought because of that? What became because of that? 
Well, not just 9/11, which we are all familiar with. Something that 
people are less familiar with or already forget was the first bombing 
of the World Trade Center, when at that time the towers did not come 
down, collapsing upon the neighbors and the people in the area; but you 
may recall that bombing in the cellars and the trucks.
  What it led to also was bombing of U.S. interests around the world as 
well. In each instance it was because of a lack of dollars and 
investment in apparatus, invested in our intelligence community, in the 
CIA and other apparatus, National Security Agency and the like. Because 
of that those things came about.
  So the gentleman is absolutely correct in this case of looking back 
to see where we did not make the investments in the past and where our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle would say continue that wrong 
philosophy of not investing in intelligence but instead just looking to 
the recovery and the response.
  We believe that we must be looking to the prevention, as the author 
of this amendment said at the very outset, that we must look to the 
prevention, and that has come about through the investment of our 
intelligence.
  So I just want to reiterate that point that the gentleman raised. 
Look back to history. Look at which party led us to the problems that 
we have today and what we need to do about it today. Look back at 
history.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington will be 
postponed.
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of this piece of legislation. 
This bill has particular significance for all Americans concerned about 
promoting the necessary and difficult objectives of protecting our 
homeland.
  As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, 
it has been a pleasure for me to work with Chairman Price on adding 
language and enhancements that will make the bill stronger and 
generally more effective.
  As a Member who represents a district that comprises 700 miles along 
the Texas-Mexico border, I am distinctly aware of the challenges that 
confront frontline law enforcement officers charged with upholding 
criminal laws such as drug and human trafficking. In recognition of 
these inherent dangers presented to law enforcement officials, also to 
private landowners as well as elected officials concerned about border 
issues, and the statutory requirements imposed by the Department of 
Homeland Security to erect a fencing barrier that spans 370 miles along 
the southwestern border, I was pleased to work with the chairman, who 
was working with me on these two distinct issues.
  My first and most important objective that I would like to address is 
regarding homeland security grants that would hopefully help the border 
cities and the law enforcement personnel that are on the border such as 
the police and the sheriff, the first responders, for stemming the tide 
of drug and human trafficking along our border. Chairman Price was 
instrumental in working with me and helping us to obtain $15 million 
for funding for Operation Stonegarden, a program that this 
administration failed to seek funding for and which had previously been 
funded in 2006.
  Operation Stonegarden began as a successful pilot program in 2005 and 
helped 14 border States on these issues. The initiative gave the States 
the flexibility that the Department grants provided to enhance 
coordination among not only the States but local community and Federal 
law enforcement agencies that are drastically needed. This pilot 
program resulted in an estimated 214 State, local, and tribal agencies 
working 36,755 man-days on various public safety as well as border 
security operations on the border.
  The budgetary constraints imposed on the committee precluded more 
funding in this area, but the bill language sends a clear message that 
programs such as Stonegarden are viable and will serve as a funding aid 
to the law enforcement communities along the border.
  Stonegarden did not receive funding last year. The funding assists 
local authorities with operational costs and equipment purchases that 
contribute to border security. The funds are intended to be used for 
operations involving both narcotics and human trafficking.
  The second objective regarding the fencing and the barriers that are 
necessary, I want to thank the chairman also for working with us in 
making sure we provide these types of barriers in an appropriate 
manner.
  I believe that the bill reported by the full committee and under 
consideration by the full House represents the most viable approach 
that can be utilized. I want to thank the chairman for allowing us to 
be able to present this bill. And as you well know, Mr. Chairman, this 
is a bill that is critical, an area that we have been lacking in this 
country where the administration has failed to provide the appropriate 
resources on the border. So I want to thank the chairman for allowing 
us to do that.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. King of Iowa:
       In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $79,000)''.

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Chief 
of Staff account in the Office of the Secretary and Executive 
Management to the fiscal year 2007 level. It represents a $79,000 
reduction, and it would go from $2.639 million to $2.56 million.
  The bill's current funding level is a 3 percent increase over fiscal 
year 2007 as enacted. There has been at least $105.5 billion in new 
Federal spending authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. 
The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every 
U.S. citizen.

                              {time}  1715

  And it grows by over $1 billion a day. Entitlement spending, being 
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is out of control and within a 
generation will force either significant cutbacks in services or 
benefits or massive tax increases.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability 
Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, 
and that is spending that's on autopilot outside the annual spending 
process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-known 
demographic trends and other factors. Discretionary spending has also 
grown exponentially and must be brought under control.
  This amendment is the first step of many necessary steps in forcing 
fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-
control Federal spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find 
both commonsense and innovative new ways to do so, and we need to find 
ways to do more with less.
  I have often speculated as to how this Congress would react if we 
brought a budget down here and presented a budget that would actually 
be a balanced budget without increasing taxes.

[[Page 15493]]

We were on a trajectory to do that. And many of the things that have 
happened so far here in this 110th Congress have reversed that 
opportunity that we've had and made it far more difficult for us to be 
able to get to the point where we can balance this budget again.
  Most of us will look back and remember that at the time of the 
beginning of this current administration, we were caught in a real 
flux, we had a dot-com bubble that was an unexpected growth in our 
economy. It brought in Federal revenues that surpassed the anticipated 
revenue stream and actually surpassed the ability of Congress to react 
to increasing spending with the Federal revenue increase. So, when the 
bubble burst, it slowed down our revenue, and at the same time, since 
we hadn't anticipated the increase, we ended up with some surplus in 
this budget, and we paid down some debt.
  That was a good thing, and I would hope we could find a way to get 
back to that good thing, but the good thing didn't last very long 
because, at the same time we had the bursting of the dot-com bubble, we 
also had things we knew about that had to do with some corporate 
corruption. That was difficult on our economy and our adjustments. And 
nearly the same time, and from a national historical perspective it was 
the same time, we had the September 11 attacks, which in the end 
generated the very subject matter that is the appropriations of the 
Department that this bill appropriates. All of those things added 
together turned this increase or spending and slowed down our revenue 
increase. Now we've seen the growth in this economy. We have seen 
unprecedented growth in our Dow, for example. And we have a strong 
economy that surpassed my anticipation. It went beyond my optimism and 
exceeded that, Mr. Chairman.
  So, what I would submit is that this Congress needs to have the 
discipline every step of the way, wherever we have the opportunity 
discretionarily, to take us back down to the level where we can one day 
come to this floor, Democrats and Republicans, and offer a balanced 
budget and then talk about how we spend that money within that balanced 
budget without increasing taxes. That's the key, and that's the thrust, 
and that's the message, Mr. Chairman, that I bring with this amendment 
that simply reduces the COS office by $79,000.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we 
will accept this amendment, but I want to explain my reasoning, if I 
might, and explain it very carefully.
  For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican 
Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member 
after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration 
bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the 
aisle has been raised in opposition, not one.
  So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very 
carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration's legitimate 
needs to administer its Department?
  Now, I don't care how many times people get on this floor and claim 
that we have made lavish increases. The fact is, and I will say it one 
more time, this bill cuts departmental operations. It cuts them below 
the President's request, and it cuts them below 2007 levels. And that 
is not a matter of inflation adjustment. It is a real cut in nominal 
terms.
  Now, within that overall cut there are some adjustments. Some 
accounts are cut more, some are increased. They are not increased for 
frivolous reasons. If we have made an increase, it has been because 
there is a good rationale for that increase. A couple of the earlier 
cuts targeted the account that includes the Privacy Office, the Civil 
Rights Office, offices that need work and need to be strengthened.
  So we have scrubbed this bill very carefully. We have basically 
provided only for current staff on board, and, in a few instances, for 
staff that we knew needed to be augmented to perform very specific 
functions. So, we have been conscientious within the context of overall 
reduction.
  Of course, the easiest thing in the world is to rail against the 
front office or the Department, to rail against the bureaucrats, to say 
these are abstract, invisible cuts. Let's just cut away, and then beat 
our chest about how tough we are fiscally. I tell you, we've been tough 
fiscally, but we have not been irresponsible. We have tied, in each 
case, our funding recommendation to specific needs of the Department, 
specific functions that need to be continued or need to be augmented. 
So we are asking, why should we be the ones to stand up for this 
administration?
  Now, I know not every Republican is in line with the sentiments that 
have been expressed here. I know there are Members on both sides of the 
aisle who understand that you need some reasonable level of funding to 
run a department. And in past years, we have provided that reasonable 
level, and we have done it again this year. But we are not going to sit 
here and simply hear all this and then be alone in our defense. So we 
accept the amendment.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow through on the comments made by 
the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee. And I think for Members 
who aren't here, which is approximately 90 percent of the body, for 
Members who are watching in their offices or perhaps not watching at 
all, I should make clear what is happening here and what is not 
happening here.
  We are not having a real debate on a real bill. What is happening is 
a debate, it is really ``filibuster by amendment.'' It has been made 
quite clear by the opposition leadership that the opposition party 
intends to bring this institution to a halt today. And the way they 
intend to do that is by offering amendment after amendment after 
amendment. There are about 120 amendments pending. And as the gentleman 
from North Carolina has indicated, we are trying to responsibly deal 
with a budget from an administration of the other party.
  The easiest thing in the world for us to do would be for us to gut 
and slash the administrative accounts in the bill for any department, 
because, after all, the administration is Republican and we are 
Democratic. But what we have tried to do instead is to meet our 
responsibilities. We tried to tie administrative budget levels to the 
actual needs of the agencies, and we have tried to deal with those 
agencies in a bipartisan manner.
  But we have a series of amendments not taking any meaningful 
reductions out of these agency budgets. We have a series of very tiny 
nicks being taken out of these budgets. And these amendments, in my 
judgement, are designed more to take up the time of this body than they 
are to produce a different financial result. And as the gentleman from 
North Carolina indicates, we have been, for the last 2 hours, trying to 
defend an administrative budget for the other party's administration.
  Now, we may not be the smartest folks in the world, but we haven't 
exactly fallen off a turnip truck. And I also think that we are not 
exactly cut out to be suckers. And so, I don't think that we can allow 
our friends on the other side of the aisle to assume that we will 
simply serve as punching bags, and that we will simply stand here 
continuing to defend administration operation accounts.
  And so, as far as I am concerned, if the administration and if the 
minority party's leadership can't control their own Members in terms of 
these budgetary attacks on these agencies, then who are we to stand in 
the way? So, I think what happens to these administrative levels will 
be pretty much up to the administration's own party. It will be very 
interesting to watch.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It is asked, you know, why are we doing what we are doing, and why 
are these amendments coming to the floor, and why are these Members 
saying what they are saying? There is a big picture involved here, Mr. 
Chairman, and I would like to speak to that.
  Number one, this isn't just about increasing spending in one 
particular program or one pet project, this is about the now majority 
increasing spending everywhere, on virtually

[[Page 15494]]

every program and virtually every pet project at almost every 
opportunity. Six months into the new majority, $6 billion on the 
omnibus appropriations, $17 billion in non-war-related emergency 
spending supplemental, $21 billion more on top of discretionary 
spending above the level at which we realize the veto threat is going 
to occur.
  Each of these appropriation bills is representing an installment on a 
plan to increase nonemergency spending by more than $81 billion over 
last year. That is a spending increase of 9 percent, three times the 
rate of inflation.
  Now, I will be the first to acknowledge that when our party was in 
the majority, we made similar mistakes. We made similar big spending 
increases. I recall my first term in 2000, coming at the end of the 
Clinton administration, an 11 percent increase in discretionary 
spending. That got built into the base, and what happened? Our budgets 
got thrown through the loop forever. We went into deficit. It was a big 
mistake at the time, that we should not have done that.
  But there are four specific problems I have with this particular bill 
before us, Mr. Chairman, which the gentleman from Iowa's amendment does 
some things to help fix.
  First, the President's budget called for an increase of 7.2 percent. 
This budget calls for an increase of 14 percent. So it raises the ante. 
So, instead of doubling the spending at the rate of inflation, we're 
going four times the rate of inflation on this bill.
  Number two, this bill takes advantage of prefunding. They have 
already used the 2007 war supplemental to prefund over $1 billion in 
fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security appropriations. That lets us free up 
the cap for more spending. So, it's really more than a 14 percent 
increase from one year to the next.
  Third, and this is my biggest concern, Mr. Chairman, earmark 
transparency. We have come a long ways on earmarks. The former majority 
party made mistakes on earmarks. Let me say this one more time. 
Republicans made mistakes on earmarks. And good thing Republicans, last 
session, began fixing those mistakes. Last session we brought to the 
floor and passed in the rules new earmark transparency rules, new 
earmark accountability rules, giving the public the ability to see the 
earmarks, see who the author is, and giving Members of Congress, there 
as the people's representatives, the ability to come to the floor and 
challenge those earmarks. To the Democratic Party credit, they extended 
those earmark reforms. And you know what, Mr. Chairman? They built upon 
them. They improved upon those earmark reforms. The Democrat majority 
improved upon the Republican earmark reforms when they came into power 
at the beginning of this year.
  Where are we now? What has happened? We went three steps forward, and 
now we went six steps back, Mr. Chairman. Now, in instead of giving the 
public the ability to see these earmarks, instead of giving Members of 
Congress, the people's representatives, the ability to challenge them, 
to vote on them, to have scrutiny on them while we consider these 
appropriation bills, what are we doing? They are air-dropping them in 
the conference report.
  Okay. What did that just mean for those people who don't know our 
lingo? This means we're not going to see the earmarks while we are 
considering this legislation as they go through the House and the other 
body, the Senate. They will be conveniently put in the bill at the end 
of the process so that no amendment can address the issue, so that the 
public will have very little time to see these earmarks, so that no 
Member of Congress can challenge the worthiness of a pet project. When 
we have come to the time where Congress is putting in thousands and 
thousands and thousands of these earmarks, raking up to tens of 
millions of dollars, one of the bills we are going to consider this 
week has something like $20 billion slated for earmarks in just one 
bill.

                              {time}  1730

  No vote, just $20 billion, empty money to be spoken for, later 
inserted in the conference report by a couple of people in the 
majority, namely the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the dean 
of my delegation. No transparency, no public accountability, no ability 
for the people, Representatives, to come to the floor and challenge 
these earmarks.
  That is not earmark reform, Mr. Chairman.
  We need real earmark reform. Let's not go backwards. And what is 
worse about all of this is, these bills are coming in far above where 
they ought to be from a funding level. We are going to have a veto at 
the end of the year and a train wreck.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to build on the comments by my colleague from 
Wisconsin, but I also want to talk a little bit about this amendment 
and the previous amendment. I tried to talk about it, but did not get 
recognized by the chairman, unfortunately.
  Mr. Chairman, I am very much concerned about the need for us to 
restore fiscal discipline to this House. I have only been here a little 
over one term. I am in my second term. I came here with the notion that 
Republicans would be people who cared about fiscal discipline. We did 
not care about fiscal discipline as much as I would have liked for us 
to, but we made a start in the right direction, and I was pleased about 
that.
  Now what we are trying to do is bring more fiscal discipline to this 
House and to spending. We do have a broken process.
  I find it really interesting that the gentleman on other side of the 
aisle, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is talking about 
our trying to shut this place down. I think that he has a very funny 
definition of this open process and this open rule and our being able 
to offer amendments. That is the way I thought a democracy operated.
  Saying that we are trying to ``shut the place down'' by doing our 
jobs is a little disingenuous, I think. I think that is coming because 
in the last 5 months you all have become so used to ramming things 
through with no opportunity for amendments that you find this a very 
unusual process. Well, we intend to use the opportunity available to us 
to offer amendments every chance we get.
  He also made the comment that we are taking up the time of this body 
to do frivolous things. Well, again, this is the job that we are 
elected to do. We are not taking up the time of the body. We are doing 
what we are supposed to be doing.
  You spent 3 months dealing with what we considered a frivolous 
exercise in talking about not funding our troops serving overseas, 
trying to protect us so we can do the very things that we are doing; 
and you didn't want to give them the money that they needed in order to 
be able to do that. That is where a lot of time was wasted, as far as 
I'm concerned.
  I want to also talk about some comments that have been made by 
members of the other party that show that there were some people who 
made promises that have not been kept.
  This quote is from 1-5-2007 from the gentleman from Alabama. ``Today, 
we made a strong commitment to returning fiscal responsibility to 
Congress. It is vital that Congress improves its stewardship of the 
taxpayers' money so we do not pass along today's spending tabs to our 
children and grandchildren.''
  That is a Democratic Member from Alabama. That is what we are talking 
about here today. We want to make cuts in this unnecessary spending so 
that we're not passing along these bills to our grandchildren and 
children.
  From the chairman of this very subcommittee, ``This bill mandates 
that all grants and contract funds be awarded through full and open 
competitive processes, except when other funding distribution 
mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level 
playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or 
administration earmarks in the bill.''
  Well, that is very different from what we know is going to be 
happening on this bill, where these earmarks are

[[Page 15495]]

going to be ``air dropped,'' as we say, later on, after the bill has 
already been passed, and people don't get a chance to react to those 
earmarks.
  Another Member from Arizona: ``The American people deserve nothing 
less than a government that is fully accountable and completely 
transparent. They need to know that their elected Representatives are 
focused on the public interest, not the special interests and not the 
lobbyists' interests.''
  In the last amendment that was offered, we wanted to do more to 
increase what is happening in national security. No. You all prefer to 
spend a lot more money on bureaucracy.
  I am very pleased that you are going to take this amendment offered 
by my colleague from Iowa. I think that is a step in the right 
direction. But we need to do a lot more of that. We need to cut funding 
here, and we need to make sure that you fulfill the promises that you 
made so strongly last fall and at the beginning of this session.
  Let's make this earmark process transparent. Let's know what is going 
to be funded in these bills. Let's put it all out there. And let's have 
the open debate that you promised we would have.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee mentioned that this 
debate is really not about the bills that we are debating this week, 
and in a sense, he is right. Unfortunately, that is the case. 
Particularly later this week, we will be debating three other 
appropriation bills, some of which have headroom or a placeholder for 
tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars that we don't know 
what that spending is. It is put in place for earmarks to be added 
later.
  So we really are not debating the real bills, and that is 
unfortunate. We should be. How can we as a legislative body decide 
whether this is appropriate spending or not when we don't know what is 
in the bill, when that will be added later?
  I am well aware of the plan to have Members request and that these 
earmarks later on will be somehow made public. But that is the 
legislative equivalent of appointing an ombudsman. Why does a body like 
this need something like that? We are not potted plants. We should be 
able to see what is in the bills. These are earmarks that should be 
transparent.
  The Appropriations Committee has before it right now some 30,000 
earmark request forms that could be made public. Other Members could 
see them. We could see if these earmark requests are appropriate or 
not. But we are not allowed to see them. We won't be allowed to see 
them. We will only be allowed to see those few that the leadership 
decides that we can see, the ones that are approved later; and then 
once we do see them, we will have no ability whatsoever to have an up 
or down vote on the individual earmarks. None.
  That is not a legislative body. That is saying that we can't handle 
it, so we are going to appoint an ombudsman, in this case maybe a 
couple of members of the Appropriations Committee, and hope that they 
will sufficiently scrub these earmarks. That is simply not acceptable.
  To the other point, that we are simply defending what the President 
has done or what the administration has done, let me just take one 
program here that we are discussing today, and that is the State 
Homeland Security grant program.
  This program is being plussed up by, I think, about $50 million, a 
significant plus-up. Yet the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, 
I think very wisely, in the committee report indicated several areas 
where this grant program is being misused, where there are several 
frivolous programs going on. Let me just name a few of them.
  A $3,000 grant was given under the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program to the city of Converse, Texas, for a trailer used to transport 
lawn mowers to lawn mower drag races. For a fire department in 
Wisconsin, $8,000 for clown and puppet shows. That is under the 
Assistance to Firefighters grant program.
  Under the State Homeland Security grant program, $202,000 was spent 
on ``downtown'' security cameras for a rural fishing village in 
Dillingham, Alaska. Now, ``downtown,'' there is a population of 2,400. 
This is 300 miles from Anchorage. There are no roads linking that city 
to anywhere. So $202,000 for security cameras in a remote fishing 
village in Alaska.
  Keep in mind, we are plussing up spending for State Homeland Security 
grants by $50 million. Why in the world are we doing that?
  Just a few others. $3,500 for small crates and kennels to hold stray 
animals. This is in Modoc County, California.
  There are some even in my own State and in my own district; I think 
we are spending $100,000 or so for synchronization of traffic lights in 
Apache Junction, Arizona, in my district. That money shouldn't come 
from the Federal Government. We are making local governments dependent 
on the Federal Government.
  Why are we plussing up funding for the State Homeland Security grant 
program by $50 million in this bill with this kind of wasteful 
spending?
  As I mentioned, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee wisely 
pointed out some of these abuses. I will offer amendments to strike 
some of that funding. I hope that we have the support of the majority 
here.
  This is not frivolous time being spent here. We are spending far too 
much money. We can ill afford it. If we can't do it here, when will we 
do it?
  As I pointed out, we are not discussing a lot of the funding that is 
in the bills. It is off limits. We don't know what it is. It will be 
added later. It is secret at this point, secret from us, the Members.
  So I applaud my colleagues for bringing forth amendments, and I hope 
that we will have more time to debate it.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I too want to comment on some of the comments made by 
the Appropriations Committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  There are two things we are doing here. One was just very eloquently 
presented by the gentleman from Arizona. We are trying to say and 
trying to insist that when these projects, when these earmarks, when 
these sorts of things appear in these bills, that there is sunshine, 
that people know what they are, that they can see them and that they 
are subject to an up-and-down vote, rather than these big slush funds 
that appear in this bill and others as they are currently constructed.
  The other thing we are trying to do here is very simple, and that is 
saving the taxpayers $21 billion. There is $21 billion more that has 
been proposed to spend in the Democrats' appropriations bills than what 
the President proposed to spend.
  Now, I might add that I am one of the 160 people who voted for a 
budget to spend $20 billion less than the President has proposed. It is 
not like what the President proposed was a flat budget. It is not like 
the President proposed a budget that didn't increase spending; it did. 
But what you have done is taken the President's proposals for spending 
increases, accepted all that, and added to it in most cases.
  I think it is very interesting that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee seems so surprised that the amendments that 
some of us are offering, including the one that I offered just about an 
hour or so ago, that these were reducing spending that was actually 
proposed by the administration.
  It may come as a surprise to people on the other side of the aisle, 
but we don't really care who proposed it, whether the President 
proposed it, a Democrat proposed it or a Republican proposed it. If it 
is spending more money than we believe should be spent, if it is 
increasing spending that increases the deficit, if it is further 
putting pressure, further trying to create a reason to enact the 
largest tax increase in American history that you all want to do, then 
we are going to want to stop it. And that is what we are doing.
  Now, there was a comment also made by the chairman of the 
Appropriations

[[Page 15496]]

Committee that there were 120 amendments, I believe he said, on this 
bill. We are talking about a lot money. I would bet there are a lot 
more than 120 earmarks that get put in here by the time things are 
done. I know there is at least $21 billion of more spending in all of 
these appropriations bills, and specifically on this bill itself a 
nearly $5 billion increase in spending over last year. So, for $5 
billion and countless thousands of earmarks, 120 amendments is not a 
problem.
  It may be many more than that. It could take many more than that.

                              {time}  1745

  These are big issues. These are important things. This is about 
whether we are going to start to arrest spending where we can, or 
whether we are going to let it continue to grow and grow and grow. 
Whether we are going to allow Americans to keep at least the amount of 
their own money that they keep now, or whether this government is going 
to continue to tax them and tax them and take more of it. If it is 120 
amendments or 240 amendments or 480 amendments, we will stand here and 
we stand ready to do that.
  I would hope that the message would get across at some point to the 
other side of the aisle that what they are doing is not right, and that 
these amendments are processes by which we are getting to what is 
right, which is not increasing spending on everything, not increasing 
all of these things and trying to keep it under control and making sure 
that when we do spend the taxpayers' money, we are up front about what 
it is, about who requested it and why. And that people have an 
opportunity to challenge that request.
  Mr. Chairman, we have begun some amendments and we have a lot more. 
This is not a joke. This is not silly, this is not something that we 
don't believe in. This is something we believe in very deeply, and it 
is something that is important and that's why we are engaged in this 
fight and will continue to be engaged in this fight.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have absolutely the highest respect for the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. He has worked very hard on this, 
along with Ranking Member Lewis, on the overall appropriations process.
  The conversation he had with this House a few minutes ago concerns me 
in that I think Mr. King, what Mr. King has proposed, it is small but 
it is frugal. It is trying to set a tone. As our chairman points out, 
we have offered, there have been offered over 100 amendments to this 
bill. What does that tell us? That tells us there are people who are 
looking at this in detail and trying to see if we are doing things 
wisely. We are exposing this bill to scrutiny.
  I think the message that we are trying to send to the Congress and to 
the process is that it is good to lay out before the world honestly how 
we spend our money. And, in turn, it is a way to show concern for a 
process that has been created by the chairman which will not disclose 
how we are going to spend special project money as we debate these 
bills.
  Two of the previous speakers have raised this concern. Quite frankly, 
the chairman mentioned we are trying to shut down the House. Well, if 
examining the work of the House is shutting down the House, examining 
it in detail, then, yes, I guess we are trying to shut it down. But I 
don't think that is the way you shut it down. That is the way you open 
it up. You let sunlight come on the process and let everybody look at 
it and decide: Is it worth that extra $79,000 or not? That is what this 
process is all about.
  But in the earmark process that is being proposed in appropriations 
this year, there is no sunlight upon that process. This process is in 
the dark. In fact, we are being asked over the next couple of weeks to 
vote on numerous bills that have billions of dollars set out in some 
sort of unidentified account that tells you we are going to spend this 
money, we will let you know how.
  I am sure my beloved wife, whom I love dearly, would love to have 
that deal; and I am sure there are a lot of other people who would love 
to have that deal. Here is the pot of money; I will let you know how I 
am going to spend it later, but I am going to spend it.
  In this particular process, it is going to be done behind a closed 
door. And behind that closed door, and the Members of Congress, who by 
the way in this Republic were sent here to do just what we are doing 
here today, examine this spending in detail, we were sent here to take 
a look at this spending on the earmark process. But we are being 
excluded. And if we have an objection that we think is offensive to 
America, we should be able to have a process to stop that.
  But when you ``air drop,'' as has been described, secretly drop into 
a conference committee the earmark process determined by one or more 
small groups of people without the 435 Members of Congress looking at 
it, too, I don't think that is any sunlight at all. That seems to be a 
dark, dark room where legislation is taking place. And it will only be 
exposed when you get a ``take it or leave it'' proposition back on the 
floor of the House. Take it or leave it. You can't amend it; you can't 
deal with it. Take it or leave it.
  Really, we are showing what it means to put sunlight on a procedure. 
We are going to try to continue to put sunlight on this procedure 
because the American people have raised the issue to us at the polling 
place that we spend too much money. So let's let them see how we spend 
it.
  I commend those who have examined this bill in detail and are willing 
to come in and make such delicate surgical cuts so as to say, this guy 
doesn't deserve an extra $79,000. You know, that is the kind of thing 
that is going to save this Republic. If we can just get the earmark 
process to be done out in the open, in the sunlight for all of us to 
see, it would be a better process.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the House, and I 
appreciate the fact that we are taking this amendment up under an open 
rule which allows for a wide-ranging debate on the important issues of 
the day.
  Now, this amendment is very simple. It saves the taxpayers money. It 
saves the taxpayers money, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is what is 
very important for us to understand here on this House floor. If we do 
not spend this money in the appropriations bill, it will reduce our 
deficit.
  As the chairman of the full committee said in his speech here on the 
floor a few minutes ago, he believes Republicans are simply 
filibustering. Well, he is in the wrong Chamber for filibustering; it 
is across the hall in the Senate.
  What we are doing here today is bringing out the fact that we as 
Republicans, our side of the aisle, we actually want to reduce spending 
and balance the budget. We have had some tough times since 2001, since 
this war began, when we were attacked in 2001. But, Mr. Chairman, what 
we have to do is understand as a nation, we have to cut this deficit 
and balance this budget and start paying down the national debt. We 
have to make sure that we have a balanced budget.
  How do we begin that process for a balanced budget? It is not by 
raising taxes, which the other side of the aisle already proposed and 
actually adopted through their new budget that they put in place this 
new Congress. They made it clear that they want to roll back to the 
prior level of taxation, the very high level of taxation that we as 
Americans faced.
  But what we believe in as conservatives, and on this side of the 
aisle especially, is that the way we balance the budget is not by 
raising taxes on the American people. We have plenty of income coming 
into the government, but we have a spending problem here. So with this 
amendment we are taking a small step, a very small step, but a step 
nonetheless, that will help us reduce spending.
  The chairman of the full committee said they have been very busy 
spending for the Iraq war, the supplemental vote. Well, as we well 
know, within that Iraq war funding bill they have plenty of pork barrel 
spending, plenty of earmarks. Well, we believe over $20 billion in 
earmarks was in that final

[[Page 15497]]

version of the bill. They were too busy spending on special interest 
projects to actually put in the details of this legislation so the 
American people can see what kind of pork barrel projects they have 
tucked into the legislation before us.
  So first of all, the process is wrong.
  Second, the spending is too high. The American people understand 
that, and they want us to do something about it. As conservatives, we 
need to take that first step. That first step is offered by my 
colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, who has offered a very reasonable, very 
simple, very straightforward amendment that is good for the taxpayer 
and is good for Americans.
  We all care about homeland security, Mr. Chairman. We believe it is 
in the interest of our government to fund homeland security and 
national defense effectively, but not blindly. Not simply because a 
number is put forward, do we have to accept it. And that is what the 
debate is about here today, about whether or not we are simply going to 
accept a high level of spending and look the other way while the 
deficit increases, while the American people are asked to spend more on 
government through their taxes.
  But we have to take that first step. A small step, but a very good, 
very important step, nonetheless. I will be proud to vote for the King 
amendment when we get that chance here in a few minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come forward with a consensus 
that these important spending matters deserve an open, honest, fair 
debate. It is not simply about getting it done quickly. We know that 
legislation takes awhile to craft. We should have an open debate and 
allow a real exchange of ideas about how to best spend our homeland 
security dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that their government 
costs too much. So let's support my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. King), his amendment here today, that allows us to take a step in 
the right direction.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his 
amendment, drawing attention once again to the amount of spending in 
this and, I am certain, in other appropriations bills as we go forward.
  I think it is important for the Chamber and for all of those who 
might be watching to appreciate that spending is, indeed, the disease 
that infects Washington. It is the disease that makes it so that 
Americans all across this Nation no longer trust this Congress to do 
the right thing when it comes to being good stewards of their hard-
earned taxpayer money.
  In fact, this Congress so far has increased spending, authorization 
for spending, by over $50 billion already. And instead of being more 
responsible with the appropriations bills they are bringing forward, in 
fact we find tens of billions of dollars in more spending.
  Now, the consequence of that is somehow you have to pay for that. 
What we have seen by our friends in the majority is adopting a budget 
that will be, if not the largest tax increase in the history of the 
Nation, the second largest tax increase, depending on how you do the 
numbers, but hundreds of billions of dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I know we have good friends who talk about the new 
direction that they brought to Washington, given the last election. Mr. 
Chairman, I am here to tell you, that new direction is backwards, and 
it is backwards to a time of tax and spend that, frankly, the American 
people don't favor.
  One of the things the American people do favor, however, is sunshine. 
And they favor it for all of the activities that we engage in here in 
Congress, sunshine in the processes that we have, and sunshine in 
making sure that votes are recorded in committee, sunshine in terms of 
the debate that goes on. And, yes, Mr. Chairman, sunshine in terms of 
the money that this Congress spends, which is why it is so distressing 
that we have a new policy on behalf of the Appropriations Committee and 
the majority that allows for hidden spending, less transparency, less 
accountability when it comes to something that the American people care 
dearly about; and that is earmarks, special projects, or ``pork 
projects,'' as many people know them by back home.

                              {time}  1800

  We have been harping on this because it is such a change, such a 
remarkable change in policy and in procedure here on the House floor 
and within the House of Representatives.
  And it's not just our opinion. It's not just our opinion. There are 
newspapers that have provided their opinion all across this Nation, 
that have agreed. They have said that the process that's been adopted, 
which would allow for one individual, one individual in this Chamber, 
to determine which special projects would be supported and to determine 
which projects would be included in a conference report, not brought to 
the floor in the usual appropriations process, not so that my 
colleagues here can stand up and say, I don't think we ought to be 
spending hard-earned taxpayer money on that project. In fact, I think I 
feel so strongly about that that we ought to vote on it, and people 
ought to be held accountable.
  It's the kind of vote that when we were in the majority we allowed 
because it's an appropriate vote to allow, and we even went further in 
the last Congress and adopted a rule that said if earmarks, if special 
projects were put in in a conference report, when you only get to vote 
on the overall bill itself, you can't pick out individual projects. If 
they were put in that conference report, then a Member of the House on 
either side of the aisle could raise a point of order and say, we ought 
not be taking that up because it violates the rules of the House, and 
had an opportunity to highlight, to bring a specific vote for a 
specific measure.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, that apparently is no longer the case, from what 
we hear by Members in the majority party now, and it's not only our 
opinion that it's the bad way to do the House's business, it's the 
opinion all across this Nation.
  The Wisconsin State Journal recently wrote an editorial and said, 
with this maneuver, it will prevent the public and most lawmakers from 
questioning earmarks until it's too late. That means you can't do 
anything about it.
  St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, But in a slick maneuver, they will keep 
them hidden from public scrutiny. In a slick maneuver, they will keep 
them hidden from public scrutiny.
  Mr. Chairman, that's not the kind of leadership that the American 
people want. That's not the kind of responsible spending of hard-earned 
taxpayer money that the people want. That's not what they voted for in 
November. They didn't vote for more hidden rooms. They didn't vote for 
less scrutiny.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment and to adopt any 
amendment that decreases spending in this appropriations bill.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, you know, it is amazing that the liberal leadership in 
the House is living up to the moniker of the hold-on-to-your-wallet 
Congress, and we see that they can't even get out of paragraph 1, Title 
I, of the bill without spending more money.
  And I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for offering his 
amendment. Sounds really simple, $79,000, make a reduction of $79,000 
in spending and make it out of the Office of the Secretary and 
Executive Management. It's the right type thing to do.
  In my district in Tennessee, people don't like what the Federal 
Government spends, and we are hearing from our constituents. They are 
looking at this bill, $36.3 billion, 6 percent more than was requested, 
13.6 percent more than last year. And in the middle of all this money, 
we can't find a way to fund the fence, which is one of the things that 
people want to see, securing our southern border?
  Now, my constituents are upset about that. They know that this is 
hypocrisy. They know that people are trying to skirt around the edges. 
They have caught on to this secret slush

[[Page 15498]]

fund and going back to the way they were and the way things used to be 
done. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's something that they don't 
like, and they are hopeful that we are going to be down here making 
certain that we put some sunlight on what is taking place.
  When you've got a group that is so addicted to the taxpayer dollar 
that they cannot get out of paragraph 1, Title I, of that bill without 
spending more money, you've got a problem. And my constituents know 
that that problem is not that the taxpayers aren't sending enough money 
up here. My constituents know that the problem is the Federal 
Government who has a spending problem. They know that it is the 
bureaucracy that has too much power over how that money is spent, and 
they know that it is the government that has a ceaseless and insatiable 
appetite for their hard-earned dollars.
  So I commend the gentleman from Iowa. I commend him for being 
diligent and reading the language in this appropriations bill. I 
commend him for being diligent and making certain that he goes through 
this bill to find ways to reduce what would be spent, to cut out the 
waste, to look for areas where it can be pulled in and tightened up and 
reductions can be made.
  You know, I know a lot of people in this House didn't like the 
Deficit Reduction Act, when we made a step in the right direction, 
reducing, cutting in that 2006 Deficit Reduction Act, cutting more than 
$40 billion, and poof, it all goes away with one stroke of their budget 
pen. Given the opportunity, they're going to spend more, and they're 
going to hide it and not tell you exactly where it is.
  And the issue of earmarks, Mr. Chairman, it comes up in nearly every 
conversation that we're having in our districts. Let's have a way to 
evaluate those earmarks. Our constituents deserve to know before that 
vote takes place rather than after that bill comes out of conference 
committee.
  In order to fund all this fun that the leadership is having, we face 
the single largest tax increase in American history. It is certainly, 
certainly inappropriate, and going in here and beginning to find places 
to make cuts, as the gentleman from Iowa has done, is the right type 
way to go.
  If you cannot find $79,000 out of a $36.3 billion budget, you've got 
a problem. If you can't reduce some out of a 6 percent increase more 
than was requested, 13.6 percent more than last year, then you've got a 
problem. It is a spending problem. It is something that needs to be 
dealt with by the Federal Government.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee. I, too, appreciate the leadership of the 
gentleman from Iowa in offering this amendment.
  Again, the dollars may be small but the principle is large, and 
frankly, Mr. Chairman, I really somewhat object to those who somehow 
suggest that after a budget was passed in this institution, 
representing the largest single tax increase in American history, that 
somehow amendments to try to save the people's money are somehow 
dilatory, are somehow frivolous, are somehow not worthy of debate in 
this democratic institution.
  We spent months, months debating one spending bill on whether or not 
to support our troops in Iraq, months, and now we hear protests from 
the other side, hours into a regular appropriations bill. Somehow after 
hours we've grown tired of that particular process.
  Mr. Chairman, I'm worried about this largest single tax increase in 
American history and what it means to people in my district, the Fifth 
District of Texas, how it impacts their ability to send their children 
to college, how it impacts their ability to start a small business, how 
it impacts their ability to pay their health care premiums. Every 
opportunity we have to try to get some of that money back to them is an 
important use of this body's time, a very important use.
  And so there are several amendments that have a very simple 
proposition behind them, and the simple proposition is in this 
particular Department, can't you level-fund from one year to the next 
year just that group administering the programs. All over America, 
after passing this single largest tax increase in the history, we're 
asking American families to somehow do with less, and all we're asking 
these people to do is do with the same amount that you had last year. 
That's all that we're asking, Mr. Chairman.
  But there are bigger issues involved here besides the roughly $2,600, 
$2,700 per family in the Fifth District of Texas who are going to have 
to pay that single largest tax increase in history.
  But we look to the future, and we know what happens if we don't take 
the first few steps towards fiscal sanity. Already we have been warned 
by the Congressional Budget Office, we've been warned by the Office of 
Management and Budget, we've been warned by the Comptroller General 
what is going to happen to this Nation if we don't do something about 
entitlement spending, something that our friends on the other side of 
the aisle refuse to engage in. Social Security and Medicare, in their 
budget, there's nothing about that.
  We've heard from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: Without early 
and meaningful action to address the rapid growth in entitlements, the 
U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations 
bearing much of the cost. Too much expenditure of the people's money 
impacts the people's security.
  We've heard from Comptroller General Walker: The rising costs of 
government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic 
consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.
  How are we going to pay for future homeland security bills if we 
don't take the first few steps towards fiscal responsibility now? 
Simply level-fund, level-fund, not cut, level-fund the administrative 
function and lead by example. Lead by example.
  Mr. Chairman, we haven't even talked about the secret earmark slush 
fund yet, which, again, I don't understand. I would think if there was 
any party who would heed the lessons well of the last election, it 
would be the party that has become the majority party. They know the 
people are outraged at earmarks, at the process, and so instead of 
taking this forward, the new majority is taking us backwards.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to necessarily personalize debate, so 
I will paraphrase here, but recently the Wisconsin State Journal, and I 
paraphrase, said the Democrats are now dodging the very reforms they 
helped to generate, and that with this new secret slush fund, and I 
paraphrase once again, it would prevent lawmakers from questioning 
earmarks.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment, and I'm 
grateful for the opportunity to call for this apparently Draconian cut 
in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in the context of having, 
like you, served in the Congress before September 11 and before there 
was a Department of Homeland Security. And I'll never forget in the 
hurried moments that would follow 9/11 how we dealt with the immediate 
issues, funding, reconstruction and recovery efforts in New York and at 
the Pentagon, how we put together to the best of our ability 
transportation security for our country.
  But I will never forget coming to this floor and feeling a great and 
ominous sense of foreboding as we created a Department of Homeland 
Security. I couldn't help but feel then that we might be unleashing, 
however well-intended, on the American taxpayers a behemoth of a new 
bureaucracy that we would someday find ourselves arguing over on this 
floor in the way we argue over every other bureaucracy.
  But it was not meant to be the case. To be candid with you, Mr. 
Chairman, I thought this day might come decades from now, when the 
bureaucratic instinct would overtake even the wisdom

[[Page 15499]]

and the clarity that would be derived on September 11, that made us 
focus a new department on the specific purpose of protecting our people 
from a real and present threat of terrorism.
  And yet as I look at the watch, it is less than half a decade from 
that horrific day, and here we are with the party in the majority 
opposed to keeping bureaucratic and administrative staff funding levels 
at their previous year. It's really extraordinary to me; $8.8 trillion 
of national debt, and the majority comes to the floor of this Chamber 
with a 13.6 percent increase in the Department of Homeland Security.

                              {time}  1815

  The current budget, $31.9 billion, the proposed budget, $36.2 
billion, more than 50 percent larger, or is $2 billion larger than the 
President's request. It's astonishing to me. I just have to wonder, as 
the American people look in on this issue, if they aren't just 
scratching their heads just the same.
  But here we are, having these typical and predictable arguments on 
the floor of the Congress about bureaucracy and levels of bureaucracy 
when we are talking about homeland security. We are also doing it very 
much without, as most of my colleagues have said, without the daylight 
and the sunshine and the accountability of knowing what will ultimately 
be in this legislation.
  I mean, it is extraordinary to me that a Democrat Congress seems so 
opposed to practicing democracy on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. To bring a bill to the floor of this Congress with the 
promise that Member projects, so-called ``earmark projects,'' will be 
added long after we have had the opportunity to challenge them.
  The Democratic process on this floor is breathtaking to me. Again, it 
bespeaks of the embrace of a bureaucratic, big-government attitude even 
where our own homeland security is involved.
  We ought, rather, in this process, to know what Members have 
requested what projects, and we ought to be having a thoughtful and 
focused discussion on this floor and calling votes one after another on 
those individual projects to decide what will keep our cities and our 
people and our families and our children safe. We ought to be having 
that discussion in the context of a full and open debate.
  But, instead, we are told that we don't have time to do that. We are 
told the public will be made aware of these projects some day in the 
future.
  That's not democracy, that's not the process.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to express my gratitude to 
the chairman for crafting a bill which tries to do what we want to do, 
which is to take seriously the admonition by former Department of 
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge that homeland security starts in 
our hometowns, and tried to officially get homeland security funds to 
our neighborhoods.
  Congressman Cantor and I were going to be offering an amendment on 
the floor to address a program that has been funded in the last couple 
of years, albeit inefficiently, by the Department of Homeland Security, 
to deal with the problem that local neighborhood nonprofit 
organizations, churches, synagogues, civic institutions, are being 
visited by local law enforcement all the time saying, here are the 
things you need to do to make your institution more hardened for the 
challenge of homeland security.
  Yet, with all the things they are being told to do, unlike a business 
that can pass along its expenses to stockholders, or unlike a 
government entity that can raise taxes or make choices on what they 
want to allocate, these nonprofit organizations really have no way to 
find the funds for things like security cameras, for emergency escape 
hatches, for communication devices within their facilities.
  The nonprofit Homeland Security grants have done that. They have done 
it in a relatively efficient way. You haven't read the stories about 
great waste because they are relatively small amounts of money to pay 
for the things like I described.
  This section of the bill, the administrative section, was where we 
thought maybe we could take some of the money to allocate for the 
nonprofit grants. The other body, an earmark, is going to take $20 
million and allocate it for that purpose. It's only a $25 million 
program that we have allocated for the past couple of Congresses. I 
think that, frankly, the knowledge that this is going to be worked out 
in conference is comforting.
  But we need to realize that one of the things we need to do, and 
frankly, it's a program that has been administered in a remarkably 
democratic, with a small D, way. It has been distributed to small 
towns, big cities, nonprofit organizations. They get visited by local 
law enforcement: These are the things you do to become more safe. They 
have gone out and done it. They have made applications to the States 
that have then funded these programs as they see fit.
  We are not going to be offering the amendment, although I am grateful 
for the bipartisan work that we have done on this. I would like to ask 
the chairman, as this moves forward to committee, in the interest of 
time in moving the program forward, I just want to make sure that you 
are mindful of our concerns about making sure that these nonprofit 
grants continue to see the light of the day.
  I yield to the chairman.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentleman for yielding and 
for his strong advocacy for these nonprofit security grants. I, too, 
have constituencies concerned about these grants, about their continued 
availability, and have convincing testimony as to the importance of 
this resource.
  We did not have a specified account in our bill, but I am aware that 
the Senate does, and we will be going to conference. I am glad to 
assure the gentleman that we will have an open mind about dealing with 
this in conference. I appreciate that he is not offering the amendment 
tonight, but we will be very, very happy to work with him going 
forward.
  Mr. WEINER. If I could reclaim my time, I would express my gratitude 
to the chairman and also to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) 
who has been so helpful with this.
  Mr. PUTNAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this amendment.
  This is a defining moment, an illustrative debate about priorities 
for this Nation. To set the stage for this debate, we have to look at 
the original blueprint for the Nation's spending that the Democratic 
Congress has produced for the American people.
  That blueprint sets the priorities for our Nation, and that blueprint 
includes the second largest tax increase in American history, second 
only to the tax increase that was proposed the last time the Democrats 
controlled the Congress. So the revenues that are being counted upon to 
be spent in these appropriations bills come from increased burdens on 
the American taxpayer.
  The other interesting thing about that defining document, that budget 
of the new Democratic majority, is that it includes provisions that 
would make Enron accountants blush, because it funds priorities like 
the farm bill and other major authorization measures and other reforms. 
It funds those with these IOU accounts called ``reserve funds,'' but 
there's nothing actually in the reserve funds.
  So this document raises taxes, spends all that money. Then, that's 
not enough, so they include these phony reserve funds to spend even 
more.
  As we enter the appropriations process to actually get down to the 
nuts and bolts of spending and allocating those dollars to the various 
programs, we also see explosive growth in the amount of money that they 
are spending and, again, to borrow from the accounting model that was 
Enron, more slush funds, more secret slush funds, stepping away from 
the important reforms that were passed in the last Congress that shed 
light on the process whereby Members could direct appropriations.
  But under the process in the last Congress, it was open to public 
scrutiny, it was transparent to the press

[[Page 15500]]

and to the public eye; and a point of order could be brought to this 
House floor if there was not disclosure and if it were air dropped in 
the moonlight of a conference.
  All that's gone. All those reforms have been swept away by the new 
majority and replaced by a system whereby one person, one individual, 
will be the sole arbiter of what is or is it not appropriate public 
spending, relegating the other 434 Members of the House of 
Representatives to a state about as useful as an appendix.
  One individual has deemed himself the sole determinant of where hard-
earned Federal dollars will be spent, and that will be done at the last 
possible moment in the earliest possible hour of the wee hours of the 
morning without the press, without the public, without the taxpayers' 
involvement.
  That is not acceptable.
  Today's debate marks the beginning of an appropriations season where 
the Republicans will insist on transparency, insist on full disclosure, 
and insist on maximizing value for America's hard-earned dollars and 
how they are spent in this Federal Government. It may be $79,000 at a 
time, as this amendment is; it may be into the millions or the tens of 
millions or the hundreds of millions.
  But we will not tolerate having a $2.7 trillion budget rammed down 
our throats without disclosure, without debate, without consideration.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Putnam was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. PUTNAM. It will not be done without appropriate deliberation, and 
these Members are here to ensure that every American tax dollar is 
spent as wisely as humanly possible. We will not accept the largest tax 
increase in American history without a fight, and the ruination that it 
will do to this economy.
  It is important that we review each and every one of these issues, 
that we consider them thoughtfully, and that we consider each and every 
one of these amendments that these individually elected Members of both 
parties have brought to this floor to work through the democratic 
process.
  That's how this institution was intended to run. That's how we will 
insist on its being run, and we will do so in a way that brings credit 
to this institution and not one that forces hundreds of millions of 
dollars.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

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

       Amendment No. 32 offered by Mr. Lamborn:
       In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $300,000)''.

  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, this would reduce by $300,000 the money 
appropriated by the Office of Secretary and Executive Management.
  Instead of $6.3 million, it would be $6 million, and this would be in 
accordance with last year's spending. This appropriations bill in its 
entirety would increase spending for homeland security by more than $2 
billion; that's more than what the President requested, and it will 
increase spending by more than $4.2 billion over the fiscal year 2007 
Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  We should show restraint by reducing the amount that the Federal 
Government spends, rather than increasing the amount. It is simply not 
prudent.
  We are at a time when the Federal Government faces an $8.8 trillion 
national debt. It's important, and this is a step in the right 
direction. Just as the last amendment saved us some hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars, this would save hard-earned taxpayer dollars as well.
  So we can be fiscally disciplined and reduce the deficit if this 
money is not spent elsewhere. Increasing the size of government or the 
amount of bureaucracy, as this bill would otherwise do, is not going to 
help in this reduction effort.
  I look forward to the debate on this amendment. I hope it's as 
productive and successful as the debate on the last amendment.
  Now, by reducing the Office of Public Affairs in the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management account to the fiscal year 2007 
level, that is a $300,000 increase, or a 5 percent increase over the 
amount of last year's budget.

                              {time}  1830

  That's more than the rate of inflation. So this amendment would be 
the first step of many necessary steps in forcing fiscal discipline and 
sanity upon the Federal Government.
  Now, this is part and parcel of a larger issue, Mr. Chairman, that's 
very concerning to many of us on this side of the aisle. We have an 
earmark process that is not subject to sunshine, not subject to 
sunlight. It is said that sunlight is the best disinfectant. And I'm 
disturbed.
  You know, I'm a freshman coming in here, Mr. Chairman, and I expected 
the better of Congress. I thought that we would have the opportunity to 
debate earmarks, and I'm very, I'm deeply disturbed about that because 
apparently we're starting down a road of appropriations bills where the 
earmarks are going to be saved for the conference committee.
  By the way, that'll be in August when we're going to be in recess. 
We're not even going to be here. And apparently there's going to be a 
list printed, and you get the bill out of conference committee, and 
you're just going to have to take it or leave it. That's not what I 
expected when I came here to Congress, Mr. Chairman. I expected better 
than that. And I'm sorry that we're going down this road. I hope that 
it can be changed at the last minute, and course can be reversed.
  The bills that are just scheduled this week would increase spending 
by $20 billion over last year. Twenty billion dollars is significant, 
Mr. Chairman, and this is one of the four bills that would contribute 
to that $20 billion increase.
  I'm also disturbed, Mr. Chairman, I've heard some reasons thrown 
around why this might be happening. I can only speculate, but what I've 
heard is that, for one thing, the Appropriations Committee was just too 
busy to look at the many, many, many earmarks that were requested of 
it. However, that reason doesn't really hold water, I don't think, 
because we just frittered away 3 months going through the Iraq war 
supplemental process, and ended up where many of us said it should have 
started out in the first place, and would have ended up and started out 
that way if we had just applied a little common sense at the beginning, 
and we would have saved those 3 months, and maybe we would have had 
time for the Appropriations Committee to look at some of these 
earmarks.
  I've also heard it said, Mr. Chairman, that for those Members who 
vote against this bill, you know, they can pretty much write off any 
chance of getting an earmark. And I'm not planning on offering any 
myself. That's probably good. And I'm planning on voting against this 
bill from everything I know about it so far. But I just think that that 
kind of retaliation is beneath the dignity of the People's Body, and I 
think that, once again, that's something I as a freshman am coming in 
and seeing for the first time, and I'm deeply disappointed by it.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I 
explained earlier, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again in support of the amendment. Again, we're 
being asked to approve a bill that increases spending over the 
President's request by more than $2 billion.

[[Page 15501]]

  The majority party wisely, I believe, in the report accompanying this 
bill, explained that there are several misuses in spending; that there 
is money that is being misspent. How in the world can we, then, 
appropriate $2 billion more than was requested by the administration?
  If we believe in fiscal discipline, we should act like it, and we 
simply can't afford to spend this much more money.
  I would also, again, talk about the earmark process. It seems to me 
that if we have a transparent process, or we require Members to 
actually put their names next to earmarks and to indicate the entity 
that the earmark goes to, that that ought to mean something, that we 
should be able to do something with that information.
  Last summer, during the appropriation process, I offered I believe it 
was 39 earmark amendments, and I got beat on every one of them. I was 
beat like a rented mule. I never got more than, I think, 90 votes, and 
most times under 50 for those that we called a roll call on. It was 
because of the process of log rolling. I'll vote against your earmark 
or amendment if you'll vote against the others. And so it goes.
  But we never had the luxury of actually knowing whose earmark that 
was. Sometimes, when the earmark was questioned on the floor, the 
author of the earmark would come to the floor and defend it. Sometimes 
they wouldn't. Sometimes we'd have the debate. We'd have a vote, roll 
call vote even, and we still had no idea who requested that earmark or 
what entity it really went to, because the language was very vague in 
the bill or the committee report.
  Now we actually have that information. We would have a different 
dynamic. If you came to the floor and said, I'm going to strike funding 
for this amendment, or, I'm sorry, for this earmark, because it goes to 
a project that is duplicative, it's wasteful, and besides, it goes to a 
project that maybe this Member is a little too close to, maybe that 
Member is getting campaign contributions that are linked to that 
earmark. Those are things that you can find out if you actually have 
the information.
  That information now sits at the Appropriations Committee. More than 
30,000 request letters sit there right now, and we have no access to 
them, nor will we. We'll only have access to those few who are approved 
by a very few Members. And then we have the luxury of actually writing 
a letter and asking about the project and having the Member supposedly 
respond.
  But then to what effect? We can take no vote on it. It's all an 
academic exercise because we'll have one vote, up or down, on the bill 
and no ability to strip the earmark. So this process is simply wrong.
  It's been said that the majority is backsliding on commitments made 
on earmarks. We've seen that, unfortunately. I was pleased to see the 
reforms that happened in January. I have said more than once I think 
there were more effective reforms, more comprehensive than we did as 
the majority party last year.
  The problem is your rules are only as good as your willingness to 
enforce them or use them, and that's where we've fallen down. That's 
where we're not only backsliding, but I would submit we're actually 
cutting and running the other direction. And unfortunately, a process 
in which you have some transparency but no accountability is an 
unacceptable process.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike 
the requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, 28 years ago I first took to this floor as a newly 
elected Member of Congress from the State of California. At that time 
we were spending more than we were taking in.
  At that time I was one of those who joined others, oftentimes, in 
voting against appropriation bills because we were not taking seriously 
enough the direction of the people that we represented to, yes, spend 
money where necessary, but get our financial house in order.
  During those first 10 years I served in this House, many times I was 
on the short end of spending votes. I recall during the 8 years of 
Ronald Reagan supporting him oftentimes on vetoes. And we managed to 
bring some of the spending down that was presented to him on occasion, 
but we still didn't do a good enough job.
  I left this House for 16 years, and when I returned, I thought maybe 
we would see another day. Well, I was doubly disappointed because my 
party, then being in power, was not doing that which I thought was 
necessary, again, to bring our financial house in order.
  And as much as I worked hard to ensure that my party would retain the 
majority status in both Houses, the people spoke otherwise. And I 
thought maybe this would give us an opportunity to finally get our 
fiscal house in order, because I had watched as we had dropped the 
banner of fiscal responsibility. I had watched, during the election, my 
friends on the other side of the aisle picking it up and suggesting 
that if they were put in charge, they would do what we had promised to 
do in the past.
  And alas, I thought that we had some suggestion that that might be 
the case as the majority party took over and, in adopting the rules, 
took the rules that we had on some reform of earmarks and actually 
built upon them, suggesting to all of us and to the public at large 
that we would, in fact, be more transparent; that we would, in fact, be 
more accountable; that we would, in fact, have greater responsibility 
for all Members individually, and in this body, collectively.
  And then I look at the very first bill that is presented here for 
this fiscal year from the Appropriations Committee, and I must register 
deep disappointment. In the first instance, this is an important bill, 
the appropriations for Homeland Security. There is probably no other 
appropriation bill that is more worthy of consideration, except perhaps 
the DOD, because, fundamentally, we are responsible for providing the 
security of the people who send us here.
  And yet, while the people tell us that is what they want us to do, 
they also suggest that we need to get our fiscal house in order.
  So how do we balance that? It seems to me we have to be honest with 
ourselves. If we get rid of all waste, fraud and abuse, we still won't 
get our fiscal house in order.
  We have to have the courage to look at important bills such as this 
bill and say, are we spending wisely? Is every dollar spent here 
necessary? Do we need to have a 13.6 increase over nonemergency 
appropriations from the previous fiscal year?
  And I would suggest that unless we look carefully at bills such as 
these, which are the most important bills that we have before us, we 
will never do the people's work appropriately.
  And I'd just ask, how is it that we say we are going to be more 
faithful to our commitment to the people, to give them a sense of 
responsibility, when we are told that we won't know what earmarks there 
are when we vote on the bill because they won't be there then, but they 
will somehow be dropped in in the conference report? I don't understand 
how that increases transparency.
  Now, I was just a lowly English major, and so I'm burdened by looking 
at the dictionary. And transparency means that you see better; that you 
see through things; that it is more obvious to you, not obscured. And 
for the life of me, I can't understand, if I'm denied the list of 
appropriations that are going to be put into that bill at the time I'm 
voting for it, how that fits the simple dictionary definition of 
transparency. Perhaps I can be aided by the other side to explain this 
to me, because I cannot understand it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent for 1 additional minute.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  And I'm sorry some thought that after we spent 120 days getting to a 
single bill on spending for our troops, and

[[Page 15502]]

after we spent Monday voting on important things such as changing the 
U.S. Code to recommend that people fly their flag on Father's Day, that 
someone thinks allowing me to speak an extra minute is somehow 
offensive. I'm sorry that that is the kind of courtesy that is missing 
on this floor.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to conclude 
by saying this. If we truly want to get our house in order, Democrats 
and Republicans alike, we have to understand that it is when we're 
dealing precisely with those things that are most important that we 
find the courage to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely so that 
we can then move on to things such as waste, fraud and abuse. But 
unless we have the guts to do this, we're never going to get our fiscal 
house in order.
  I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I support the idea of 
funding the Department of Homeland Security appropriately, but question 
whether a 13.6 percent increase over nonemergency appropriations in the 
previous fiscal year shows either that we have exercised that proper 
authority with respect to spending, and whether or not we have been 
discreet enough in our decisions.
  And I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Reclaiming my time, and I would like to ask 
the gentleman a question, or ask his comment.
  At the end of the bill, in the general provisions, I'll be offering 
an amendment to cut, across the board, 5.7 percent of the entire bill, 
across the board.

                              {time}  1845

  Even with that so-called ``cut'' in the increase, it will still be a 
7.1 percent increase over current spending, taking the budget request 
that came to us from OMB.
  Would the gentleman feel compelled to support that type of an 
approach?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I would feel compelled to 
support that type of approach.
  And, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is criticized at that time for 
having a cut through his amendment, I would suggest that those of us 
who want to lose weight should follow that kind of argument. Because we 
could say, instead of gaining 50 pounds, we only gained 30 pounds, and, 
therefore, we managed to lose weight.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Well, at the end of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I 
can't do it now and I would like to have done it at the outset of the 
debate, under our rules, it can only be offered at the end of the 
discussion. But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this 
body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent 
level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number 
two, thereby avoiding a veto.
  I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for 
the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a 
veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we 
need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I 
think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But 
this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still 
subject to fiscal responsibility.
  I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for 
a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done 
a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not 
needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall 
cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be 
the responsible way to do it. And I would hope the gentleman and all of 
his colleagues in the body would support that when the time comes
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. If the gentleman would yield, I 
will be proud to vote for your amendment to have a 7.1 percent 
increase, which, as I understand, is more than double the rate of 
inflation over the previous year.
  Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. The gentleman is correct.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for 
offering this amendment, and I want to thank him for his leadership in 
this body, particularly on matters of fiscal responsibility. And I know 
his district is proud to have him as their Representative.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter that we discuss this 
evening. Like many Members of Congress, I commute. I work in 
Washington, but I live back in my district. And I have two small 
children that happen to be visiting this particular week, and I think 
about threats to my children and I know the threat of radical Islam. It 
is one of the most serious threats that they face. So I take the debate 
on this bill on homeland security very seriously.
  But, Mr. Chairman, I see other threats to my children's future and my 
Nation's future. And another threat I see is a Federal budget that has 
grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I am afraid if I look at a bill that calls for roughly a 14 
percent increase from one year to the next, almost twice the level of 
what the President requested, I question what this is going to do to 
the future of my children and the future of my country.
  Because don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman; look again at what 
the Congressional Budget Office has told us, the Office of Management 
and Budget, the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, both 
conservative and liberal think tanks. They have told us that the 
present spending patterns that we have, if we don't begin to change the 
way we spend the people's money, if we don't reform out-of-control 
entitlement spending, the next generation will face one of two perils. 
Either, number one, we will actually see their taxes doubled, just to 
sustain this rate of growth in spending, their taxes will be doubled; 
otherwise, we will have a Federal Government that consists of little 
more than Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security.
  I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is what is almost ironic about this 
debate; that as we talk about plussing up this account by 14 percent, 
if we don't change the way we spend the people's money, there won't 
even be a Department of Homeland Security for the next generation. So, 
again, what we are doing here in this bill is, we are kicking the can 
down the road, I fear.
  And as I look at how money is spent, it reminds me, it is not always 
how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And I don't 
know if it is the President's fault, Democrats' fault, Republicans' 
fault, everyone's fault, nobody's fault. But when I see the Department 
of Homeland Security money somehow ending up helping fund lawn mower 
races, as the gentleman from Arizona brought to our attention, fund 
puppet shows, how is that a critical mission within the Department of 
Homeland Security? That is beyond me. That is beyond me.
  So I think we have to look very carefully at how the money is spent. 
And I am afraid that throwing this much money at this situation is just 
going to exacerbate this kind of spending.
  Now, in my home district, I am very happy when every volunteer fire 
department in every small community in my district gets a new pumper 
truck. I am happy to announce that. I wonder, though, with the 
challenges we face for the next generation if it is really mission 
critical.
  And I am very concerned, as the gentleman from Arizona has spoken, as 
many others have risen on the floor today, about what is happening in 
the earmark process. Again, it is not so much always how much money you 
spend; it is how you spend the people's money.
  So the new majority that promised us earmark reform is now telling us 
that they are going to do something completely opposite. They are going 
to take away the ability for Members, Members who are on the floor 
today, with the exception of one, I suppose, to offer amendments to 
strike these earmarks to get at spending perhaps like the lawn mower 
races. This is moving in the complete opposite direction of what the 
majority promised when they took office.

[[Page 15503]]

  The American people will not stand idly by.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I was just back in the cloakroom getting a little bit 
of the news of the outside world. And the outside world is focusing on 
what we are doing here.
  There was a long segment on Fox News about the issue that we are 
discussing here today. And they actually did a fairly good job of 
characterizing what is happening here. They talked about the fact that, 
as a result of a lot of discussion about the plans by the majority to 
take away our opportunities to have transparency in the earmark 
process, one person is going to be making those decisions as to whether 
or not the earmarks are right. We are not going to be able to vote on 
them.
  They said, I think very correctly, that that is not what the American 
people were promised last year. And one of them, not known as a flaming 
conservative, I have to say, said what the American people wanted was 
maximum scrutiny and maximum sunshine on the process.
  And I again want to bring some quotes to our discussion to remind 
people of some of the things that were promised. The Speaker of the 
House said last December, ``We will bring transparency and openness to 
the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the 
American people the leadership they deserve.''
  Well, I don't think the American people deserve what they are being 
given by the majority party. I call it the ``house of hypocrisy'' and 
an ``attitude of arrogance.'' The attitude of arrogance is so pervasive 
on the other side that it has become something that even the press is 
talking about. We don't normally get that kind of coverage on what is 
happening here in the kind of detail that they are coming out with, and 
I think it is good for the American people.
  Another quote by the majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules 
that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't 
legislate in the dark of night . . . We need to have earmarks subject 
to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. 
Democracy works if people know what's going on.''
  Earlier this evening the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
accused us of simply wanting to slow down the process by our bringing 
up amendments and raising the issues about what this bill does. And yet 
his own leader says, ``Democracy works if people know what's going 
on.''
  But the majority party wants to keep the people from knowing what's 
going on. They have an attitude of arrogance. They know best. The 
people don't know best. Our side of the aisle doesn't know best. Only 
one or two people know best in here.
  Some other Members, some of the freshman Members actually, who were 
elected last year on the basis of openness in government and reform in 
government, the gentleman from New York: ``Mr. Chairman, we have a 
responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax 
dollars in a fiscally responsible way.''
  Some of my colleagues have just outlined the deficit problem that we 
have and how pretty soon almost all the Federal dollars are going to be 
spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, with nothing left. We 
are spending ourselves into a terrible deficit situation.
  Another freshman, this time from Florida: ``Congress will not 
reestablish its credibility and trust with the American people until 
accountability and oversight is established in Washington.'' A 
grammatical error there, but that is the quote.
  That is what the American people want. That is what they were 
promised last fall. They are not getting it.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer a clarifying amendment to the 
underlying bill. As currently constituted, funding is appropriated for 
Customs and Border Patrol to construct, renovate, equip, and maintain 
buildings and facilities necessary for enforcing our immigration laws.
  My amendment would have added the word ``structures'' in addition to 
facilities and buildings. This minor change would have made it clear 
that the Customs and Border Patrol can focus on the physical 
infrastructure needs of our border security apparatus with the funds 
appropriated by this bill.
  Securing our borders, as we know, requires a multifaceted approach. 
We need to do more than just maintain facilities and buildings. We need 
to build fences. We need to deploy sensors, and we need to take 
advantage of all the advanced technology and equipment that is being 
developed right now.
  Currently, the Tucson sector that I represent has more apprehensions 
than all other sections of the border combined. Every single day our 
Border Patrol apprehends, on average, about 2,000 individuals and over 
2,500 pounds of drugs.

                              {time}  1900

  This is the most porous part of the U.S.-Mexico border.
  While most illegal immigrants come here to look for work and 
opportunities, approximately 10 percent are involved in criminal 
activities. So, border security must be strengthened, and all options 
for accomplishing this must be on the table.
  Nationally, the Border Patrol arrests about 1 million illegal 
immigrants annually, seizes about a million pounds of marijuana and 15 
to 20 tons of cocaine. Smugglers' methods, routes and modes of 
transportation are potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited by 
terrorists attempting to bring weapons into our Nation. The Border 
Patrol must be allowed to deploy and sustain an appropriate mix of 
personnel, equipment, technology and border infrastructure in order to 
protect our Nation.
  As Congress moves forward in this process, I urge my colleagues to 
allow the Customs and Border Patrol to take the necessary steps in 
order to secure our border and to secure our citizens. This would 
expand the opportunity for Customs and Border Patrol to secure our 
Nation and protect our communities.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment from my colleague from 
Colorado. I think it is important that we remind those participating in 
this debate what that amendment would do. That amendment would strike a 
grand total of $300,000 from the public affairs budget of the 
Department of Homeland Security. It would hold the Department's public 
affairs budget to the same figure that they are living with this year. 
I would suggest that that is not a shocking proposal. It is one that I 
am happy to support, and one that I think illustrates the kind of thing 
we can do in this Congress on this floor to demonstrate to the American 
people that we get it, that we understand that as a Nation we are 
overspending. We are spending not our money, we aren't even spending 
our children's money; we are spending our grandchildren's money. And 
they, the American people, have told us they do not want us to do that. 
They want us to stop that practice. They want Republicans to stop that 
practice, they want Democrats to stop that practice, they want 
conservatives to stop that practice, they want liberals to stop that 
practice. They want us to live within our means and to be reasonable.
  The ranking member of this committee has spoken earlier today that 
the bill increases spending by 13.6 percent. I want to ask, how many 
Americans, how many people in this room, how many Members of Congress, 
how many of your children who have gotten a job this year will get a 
13.6 percent raise this year? I suggest virtually no one can answer 
that question and say they will get that kind of staggering raise.
  Instead, the ranking member has proposed a reasonable solution which 
is, in fact, quite frankly, generous in and of itself, and that is a 
7.2 percent increase. Not exactly a tiny, not exactly a squeaky cheap 
amount; a pretty darn generous raise, a generous raise that probably 
any American would take. And yet, that is not enough.

[[Page 15504]]

  I also rise to express my objections to the earmarking practices that 
are being condoned and that are proposed to be implemented in this 
body.
  The reality is that earmarking has its defenders and can, in fact, do 
some good. The reality is that earmarking is also susceptible of 
outrageous abuse and can lead to scandals. Many of the scandals in this 
body which were talked about by the minority in the last election are 
scandals that relate to earmarks. And yet, in the face of promises that 
we would have more sunshine, in the face of promises that the American 
people would get to see where their money is being spent, that they can 
hear about it, that it could be challenged and debated on this floor, 
that it could be vetted and viewed, I happen to believe in sunshine. I 
came out of the Arizona Attorney General's Office, and we had the most 
open sunshine laws in the Nation because we believed sunshine would 
bring cleanliness, sunshine would allow people to see what government 
was doing. And here we propose to hide that. We propose to hide tens of 
thousands, I guess the chairman of the committee says 36,000 earmarks 
are going to be air-dropped into the legislation at the end of this 
process. That is simply unacceptable to me, and it ought to be 
unacceptable to the American people.
  The gentlelady just spoke of the importance of securing the Arizona 
border, and I believe that is extremely important. But let's talk about 
one provision of this bill that simply not only makes no sense, it is 
hypocritical, and it will clearly violate the U.S. Constitution.
  In this bill we say point blank we are appropriating $1 billion for 
new high-tech security. And I certainly agree with my colleague from 
Arizona that every dime of that $1 billion for high-tech security on 
our border is needed. If we are to secure that border, we need that 
money. But this legislation says, we appropriate $1 billion, but then 
$700 million, almost three-fourths of $1 billion, is reserved and 
cannot be appropriated until a committee in the Congress says so. That 
is unconstitutional.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I rise in strong support of the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, for 
many of the reasons that have been expressed more eloquently by my 
colleagues, including the gentleman from Arizona.
  It does strike me that at a time of an $8.8 trillion national debt, 
that we should be able to ask the Department of Homeland Security to 
get by on last year's public affairs budget, which is really all the 
Lamborn amendment does, by my way of thinking, is it asks the 
Department of Homeland Security to stay at the $6 million level for a 
public affairs budget as opposed to moving to a $6.3 million.
  As my friend from Arizona just expressed, this legislation overall 
will allow for a 13.6 percent increase in a single year. And as other 
amendments have illuminated, much of those increases are simply going 
for the same kind of bureaucracy that we will argue over in every other 
aspect of government.
  But I go back to my previous point, Mr. Chairman. I thought for sure 
when we created the Department of Homeland Security that it would be 
different. And I have to say, that is probably a naive thought. We 
excluded it from many of the public employee protections. We gave the 
President of the United States greater flexibility because we said, you 
know, very much like the military, the Department of Homeland Security 
will have a special and unique mission. It would not just be another 
Cabinet agency that we would be feeding from the trough here on Capitol 
Hill in the appropriations process every year. But here we are. Here we 
are with a Democrat majority that is opposed to even our willingness, 
with the outstanding leadership of the ranking member, to let this 
Department get by a 7 percent increase next year as opposed to 13.6.
  I also would renew my objection expressed in much of the procedure 
that is happening on the floor today and well into tonight, and perhaps 
well into the rest of the week; that is, it is astonishing to me that a 
Democratic Congress is against democracy when it comes to providing for 
accountability in the spending process in the United States Congress. I 
mean, to simply say that there are tens of thousands of specific so-
called earmark projects that have been requested of the committee that 
are in some filing cabinet here in the Capitol Building, but that were 
not able to be added to this bill in a timely fashion so that the 
democratic process and the accountability of this open rule could serve 
as that antiseptic that it is supposed to function is quite beyond me.
  It is quite beyond me that the Democrat majority would think that the 
American people would be willing, having clamored loudly in the last 
election for fundamental reform in the way we spend the people's money, 
fundamental earmark reform, with the infamous ``bridge to nowhere,'' 
would now allow and stand idly by while the Democrat majority brings 
about earmark reform that says we will only bring earmarks when they 
can no longer be removed from bills. We will presumably make them 
public during the month of August so people can look at them, but we 
will give Members of Congress absolutely no power to challenge those 
earmarks in the legislative process. That seems to me to be a 
breathtaking step backwards from the earmark reform that the American 
people demanded in 2006.
  And so I renew my support for the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
but I also renew my objection to the fact that we are seeing 
appropriations bills, starting today, coming to the floor with, shall 
we say, room to grow, room to add earmarks at a time in the legislative 
process when they cannot be challenged, and therefore, the interests of 
the American people and the accountability they demand cannot be served 
in the ordinary legislative process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado will be 
postponed.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will 
now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  Amendment No. 21 by Mr. Crowley of New York.
  Amendment by Mr. Campbell of California.
  Amendment by Mr. Reichert of Washington.
  Amendment by Mr. King of Iowa.
  Amendment No. 32 by Mr. Lamborn of Colorado.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Crowley

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 244, 
noes 174, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 453]

                               AYES--244

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castor
     Chabot

[[Page 15505]]


     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heller
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Space
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Christensen
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gillmor
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Lamborn
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lucas
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Udall (NM)
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Arcuri
     Bordallo
     Conaway
     Costa
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Goode
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (GA)
     Linder
     Miller (FL)
     Platts
     Sessions
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  1935

  Messrs. LARSON of Connecticut, SPRATT, CUELLAR, BOSWELL, and 
ROHRABACHER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. INSLEE, GINGREY, CRENSHAW, PASTOR and BILBRAY changed their 
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 453, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''


            Amendment Offered by Mr. Campbell of California

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 201, 
noes 221, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 454]

                               AYES--201

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mitchell
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)

[[Page 15506]]


     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Arcuri
     Bilirakis
     Conaway
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (GA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  1942

  Mr. BARROW changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Reichert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 218, 
noes 205, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 455]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fortuno
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Israel
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--205

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Norton
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Arcuri
     Conaway
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Franks (AZ)
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Hobson
     Issa
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (GA)
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are exactly 
2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1949

  Mrs. BACHMANN and Mr. LARSEN of Washington changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) on 
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes 
prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.

[[Page 15507]]

  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 379, 
noes 45, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 456]

                               AYES--379

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--45

     Baird
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Carson
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cohen
     Dingell
     Engel
     Fattah
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCaul (TX)
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Mollohan
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Ryan (OH)
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Waters
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Arcuri
     Conaway
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaTourette
     Lewis (GA)
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1956

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The CHAIRMAN. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Lamborn) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 381, 
noes 41, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 457]

                               AYES--381

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bordallo
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Levin
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack

[[Page 15508]]


     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Norton
     Nunes
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--41

     Baird
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Clarke
     Costello
     Dingell
     Engel
     Farr
     Fattah
     Grijalva
     Hinchey
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Kanjorski
     Kucinich
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Mahoney (FL)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Mollohan
     Murphy (CT)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Towns
     Waters
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Arcuri
     Conaway
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Hastert
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Oberstar
     Sali
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  2002

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Foxx

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

       Amendment No. 33 offered by Ms. Foxx:
       In title I, under the heading ``Office of the Secretary and 
     Executive Management'', after the first dollar amount insert 
     ``(reduced by $1,241,000)''.

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Office of 
General Counsel in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management 
account to the FY 2007 level representing a $1.241 million reduction 
from $14 million to $12,759,000. The bill's current funding level for 
this office represents a 10 percent increase over FY 2007, enacted.
  There has been at least $105.5 billion in Federal spending over 5 
years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The 
current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S. 
citizen.
  This is growing by over $1 billion a day. We know that because every 
day we walk down the halls of these buildings here, and we see the 
signs that the Blue Dogs have put out, which remind us what the current 
Federal debt is and how much it is for every single U.S. citizen.
  Spending on the programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is 
out of control, and within a generation will force either significant 
cutbacks in services and benefits or massive tax increases. We know 
that is already happening because the Democratic majority has already 
recommended the largest tax increase in the history of this country 
through their budget they adopted earlier this year.
  The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability 
Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, 
for instance, spending that is on autopilot and outside the annual 
spending process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-
known demographic trends and other factors. That spending, subject to 
the annual spending process, has also grown exponentially and must be 
brought under control.
  This amendment is one step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal 
discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-control 
Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find 
both commonsense and innovative new ways to do more with less. The 
Federal budget must not grow faster than American families' ability to 
pay for it.
  We have been hearing a lot here tonight about fiscal responsibility 
and spending, taxes and deficits. There was a lot of talk about these 
things during the last election. I think there is a lot of confusion 
and misinformation out there right now, and I want to take a few 
minutes to give people a heads-up on what's going on.
  This debate and all this talk need some context and some simple 
facts. Speaker Pelosi said on September 12, 2006, ``Democrats are 
committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have 
produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of 
debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore pay-as-you-go 
budget discipline.''
  If you want to know exactly what's not going to happen to the Federal 
budget under this Congress, listen to that statement. PAYGO will not 
touch a cent of the trillions of dollars with which we have saddled our 
children and grandchildren. Furthermore, new spending will be proposed 
and taxes raised to pay for it.
  That's what we are seeing here, and that's what this debate is all 
about. The plan is to spend more than ever, repeal tax relief and allow 
the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities to go on unreformed, 
all under the veneer of fiscal responsibility called PAYGO.
  I am down here now because I want people to know this, and to know 
what it means. I want to put this debate in context.
  This bill and the others we will debate in the coming weeks mean that 
the Federal Government is going to cost you more. You are going to pay 
more than you ever have before in taxes. I think we need to talk about 
that.
  People can deny it and spin it any way they want, but the cost of the 
Federal Government is going to increase under the current fiscal plan. 
This is in spite of the fact that Americans already pay a staggering 
amount of money, but Democrats want more. They always do and they 
always will, even though the average American worked about 125.6 days 
in 2005 to pay for Federal, State and local spending.
  Guess where the largest part of it went. To the politicians right 
here in Washington. In 2005, the average American worked about 83 days 
to pay for Federal spending. Guess what, it's not enough. These numbers 
are set to increase as far as the eye can see.
  Now, let's just put Federal spending into context.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, since the House was 
not in order, for another minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will have another minute, but the Chair 
will, for the edification of all Members, point out that the very able 
timekeepers do stop the clock when Members are interrupted.
  Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Let's just put Federal spending into context. Do you know 
that the United States Federal Government is on track to spend more 
money

[[Page 15509]]

next year than Germany's entire economy in 2005? Germany is and has 
been the third largest economy in the world.
  There are only two countries in the world with entire economies 
larger than the U.S. Government budget, the United States itself and 
Japan. Do you know that next fiscal year, the fiscal year we are 
considering now, the U.S. Government is on track to spend $700 billion 
more, $700 billion more. That's more than the entire Chinese economy in 
2005.
  We are on a spending spree that needs to stop. It's called a tax-and-
spend policy. That's the model. It hasn't changed.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and make a 
very small dent in this unsustainable fiscal policy.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept the 
amendment, but I want to make clear that we are doing it in the spirit 
that we accepted earlier amendments. That is, if no one on the other 
side of the aisle is willing and able to defend the Bush administration 
and their budget request and their departmental operations, then it's 
not clear to us why we should take that on. We have had a steady stream 
of invective tonight, a lot of ideology, a lot of bureaucratic bashing, 
and not very much attention to the specifics of this very carefully 
drawn budget.
  Now, you wouldn't have known it from the last presentation, but let 
me tell you what this amendment does. The amendment cuts the funding 
for the general counsel in the Department $1.2 million below President 
Bush's request. Now, it's not about earmarks. It's not about the 
history of the parties and their ideologies. It's about cutting $1.2 
billion below President Bush's request for the general counsel in the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Now, Members can make their own decision about whether that's wise. 
But as for us, we don't intend to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify again that the gentleman from North 
Carolina just said that this amendment proposed by Ms. Foxx cuts $1.24 
million from the President's request.
  It is true that, in fact, it proposes to spend less on the Office of 
General Counsel, which is the attorneys, than what the President has 
proposed. But that does not make it a cut. Because what it proposes to 
do is leave the spending for the Office of General Counsel, for the 
attorneys, in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management at 
exactly the same level they had last year.
  I really have a hard time understanding how it is always a cut when 
it is less of an increase than you want it to be, or than somebody 
wants it to be, in this case, I suppose, than the President wants it to 
be. But we are not looking at this as Republican spending or Democratic 
spending, we are looking at it as spending.
  The reason, I am not sure that it's been made quite as clear as 
perhaps it ought to be, that in the Democrats' budget that you all 
passed a month or so ago, where you moved towards a balanced budget, 
and I take you at your word that it's your intention to, at some point, 
get to a balanced budget, but you did it by enacting, proposing, I 
guess it's the second largest tax increase in American history, which 
means that as you increase spending on things, you intend to then 
balance the budget by increasing taxes.
  That is clearly what you are going to do. That is what your budget 
does, and you have made it very clear through your PAYGO provisions 
what you intend to do. When you increase spending, going to balance the 
budget will increase taxes.
  So with this amendment and with every other amendment we are looking 
at, we are saying here that we are not going to increase spending in 
the Office of General Counsel by $1.2 million. That is $1.2 million of 
additional spending that will not occur if this amendment passes.
  But that means it is $1.2 million of taxes that you all won't raise 
if this amendment passes. Now that works on this amendment, it works on 
various other amendments that will be coming up through the evening. So 
it's more than just an academic exercise about whether or not a certain 
department's budget should be increased.

                              {time}  2015

  It, in fact, affects, Mr. Chairman, people at home today now watching 
this. Is this $1.2 million that you want to see your taxes increase to 
spend? I think not. I think most of the people on this side believe 
not; and that is really what we're talking about, because if you say, 
as you did in your budget, that you will increase whatever taxes you 
need to to get to a balanced budget, then this $1.2 million is $1.2 
million of money that you will take out of Americans' pockets that 
you're not taking now.
  And it's really more than that, because if this were to go in, then 
next year there's a new base, and it's a higher base, and if you 
increase it another 10 percent beyond that, then it's another $1.22 
million; and if you increase it again, it's another $1.44 million. And 
it goes on and on, and so that over a 5-year period this $1.2 million 
magically turns into about $6 million or so of people's money that gets 
spent, and which you will propose, undoubtedly, to increase taxes to 
cover so that you can balance the budget.
  We can balance this budget, and we can balance it without taking any 
more money out of Americans' pockets. And we can balance it by passing 
amendments like this and simply asking government to live with the 
money they have now. This is not a cut, just live with the money you 
have now.
  Can't this General Counsel's Office, can't these attorneys operate 
for another year on the same amount of money that they got last year? I 
think they can.
  Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
requisite number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlelady from North 
Carolina for offering this amendment. Any time we can save $1.2 
million, I think we ought to do it.
  We have Americans sitting across our great fruited plain tonight 
listening to this debate. They've just gotten up from their dinner 
tables, trying to make decisions on how they can balance their own 
budgets.
  When we first came to Congress, I'm a new Member of Congress. I came 
out of the Tennessee Legislature. When we came here, we talked about 
open government and transparency, and we're going to be the most honest 
government in Congress ever; also talked about gas prices are going to 
be brought down rather than go up. Those are just some of the things 
that were promised.
  Well, American families are sitting around their dinner tables 
tonight trying to decide how they're going to balance their own budget, 
and they're looking to us here in the Congress to make sure that we 
don't put an extra burden on them by raising their taxes and raising 
these appropriation requests.
  I came to the Congress out of the Tennessee Legislature, as I said, 
and I was known for open government and transparency. That's one of the 
ways I was able to win my election. And that's exactly what people want 
in this Congress. They want a Congress that they can feel good about, 
that we're going to be honest with them and we're going to spend their 
tax dollars wisely.
  Ronald Reagan once said, we don't have a $1 trillion debt because we 
don't tax enough. We have a $1 trillion debt because we spend too much. 
And anything we can do to help control those tax dollars and that 
spending is exactly what we need to do.
  We need that transparency and that accountability as we move forward, 
and we don't need secret slush funds. We don't need to come in after we 
pass bills, later on, and then drop in pieces of legislation called 
earmarks. That was another promise that was made during the last 
elections, that those would be open and transparent. We don't need to 
drop those in later, where the American people don't have an 
understanding.

[[Page 15510]]

  They understand they've got to make their house payments. They 
understand they've got to fill up their vehicles and their cars with 
this gas that was going to have lower gasoline prices. They understand 
that. But they certainly need to understand, as well, what we're voting 
on. We need to be open and accountable.
  It's interesting to me, just looking back at some of the things that 
were said by the Democrat leadership. Back on September 14 of 2006, the 
Speaker of this House said, this is a place where we really need to 
throw up the shades and pull back the curtains. We have to have the 
fullest possible disclosure. It has to be on earmarks and 
appropriations and authorizations and on taxation, and it has to be 
across the board with no escape hatches.
  Well, I stand in support of this amendment, so we can make sure that 
we throw up the shades and make sure that we're held accountable.
  I'd like, again, to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her 
leadership on this amendment.
  And with that, I'd like to yield my time to the gentlelady from North 
Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I thank my colleagues for 
coming and supporting my amendment tonight. I thank them for the points 
that they are bringing up.
  The gentleman from Tennessee is doing an excellent job in his first 
year here in the Congress.
  I also want to thank my colleague from California who made a really 
excellent point that is something that needs to be made over and over 
again. When we try to cut back additional spending, it is always a cut, 
not raising money. Not raising spending is a cut to Democrats. And I 
think that's a point that needs to be made over and over again. Not 
increasing spending is a cut. That's not the way the general public 
sees it.
  I also want to point out the fact that we are working very hard to 
bring us to the point where we could have a balanced budget.
  Americans do have to live with a balanced budget. Individual 
Americans have to. They have to live with the money they have now. But 
Congress doesn't do that. And this Congress particularly is looking for 
every way it possibly can to spend additional money and to tax the 
American public, which is certainly taxed enough.
  This seems like, to the majority party, that this, again, is a cut. 
But Everett Dirksen, one of my heroes, said, a million here and million 
there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. That was during 
the time when they were not billions.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate your patience as some of us exercise 
our frustration and try and make a point or two. And I want to commend 
the gentlelady from Virginia for offering this amendment to cut $1.241 
million from the Office of General Counsel and the Office of the 
Secretary and Executive Management account from the fiscal year 2008 
level that's being proposed here.
  It would still be an increase, but there's two areas that I want to 
highlight with my frustration, and one is, with an overall level of 
antagonism and kind of vitriolic partisanship that's occurring here, 
and I think a lot of it's a frustration or results from our 
frustration.
  For example, in the last year or so, as our friends in the now 
majority, then minority, were bringing up and talking about how we were 
spending so much and that we were out of control, and I've got to tell 
you, I voted against some of our appropriation bills because I thought 
that they were too high.
  The interesting part is when people in my district would come up, 
having bought into this rhetoric, I said, but you don't understand that 
we're fighting with them every day to keep it as low as it is. I said, 
if they're in charge, just wait.
  Well, here we are with the first bill, and it's a 13.6 percent 
increase over last year's appropriation. And we had a speaker up here 
earlier that talked about building that base. You increase it 13.6, and 
then next year, when you increase it 13.6, just the exponential 
increases in the budget.
  When you look at those that we passed last year, we are barely above 
the inflation rate in these discretionary accounts, but yet we were 
criticized by the now majority for being too ``spendy.''
  So I see the irony, and most of it was, you know, we tried to tell 
people last year that this is just their campaign nasty rhetoric. But 
it seems odd to me that just their first bill they're going to increase 
it so dramatically.
  Now, I'll tell you another area of my frustration was coupled with 
the criticism from the now majority last year about earmarks and the 
process. And we passed a bill last year that altered the process for 
earmarks, and it was one that I thought was very appropriate because it 
dealt with earmarks by spreading sunshine on the process. And I really 
believe that sunshine is always the best disinfectant. So we adopted a 
process that embraces sunshine. What it means is that somebody had to 
have ownership for an earmark request, and that the earmark request had 
to go through what we would deem regular order, which means you submit 
it to the appropriations subcommittee staff, then I would go and 
testify in front of that subcommittee on my earmark; we could have give 
and take and an intellectual conversation about that, and it would be 
then voted upon by that subcommittee, which would then raise up to the 
committee level where that earmark or that Member request would then be 
reviewed again.
  The most important part of the process is when you get it out of the 
appropriations arena and bring it to the House floor where everyone can 
then see it and determine whether or not there should be an amendment 
to strike that particular provision from the appropriation bill. This 
is when everyone then gets to be part of the process of making sure 
that it's a valid, well, whatever is determined to be valid, but 
whether it's not, you know, a rainforest in Iowa City or some type of 
pet project like that.
  I remember last year we voted probably almost on every appropriation 
bill at least a dozen amendments to strip out these type of really pet 
projects that just really didn't mean much for the Nation, but 
certainly may have meant something for a neighborhood. Now, most of 
those failed, although I voted in favor of most of them.
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. You 
know, I think sometimes we get a little crass around here and we think, 
oh, it's just $1 million, it's just $1.2 million. But the people back 
in the 19th District of Texas still think that $1.2 million is a lot of 
money. In fact, it's their hard-earned money that we're debating on the 
floor of this House tonight. I think sometimes we forget that.
  One of the things that I am very proud of is the fact that our 
economy has been growing at a very strong rate for the last few years. 
We found a novel idea about leaving more of the American taxpayers' 
money in their pocket, and what happened? The economy started getting 
better, more jobs.
  More people today, Mr. Chairman, own a home than any other time in 
the history of this country. More people working today than any other 
time in the history of this country. And why is that? Because we're 
creating jobs. And who are creating those jobs? Businessmen all over 
this country.
  And one of the things that concerns me about this budget process that 
we've gone down, and it's been alluded to tonight, is really what we're 
talking about tonight is tax increases, because we know that this 
budget is going to be financed with more taxes.

                              {time}  2030

  And, quite honestly, the people in the 19th District of Texas believe 
they are paying enough taxes. In fact, they believe that Congress 
doesn't have an income problem. It has a spending problem. And it is 
one that they are looking to our leadership to begin to solve. As was 
alluded to a while ago, you cannot spend your way out of a deficit.

[[Page 15511]]

  One of the things that concerns me most about this budget process is, 
we are also going to be asked to vote on things we can't see right now, 
but we are going to trust somebody. In other words, what we are going 
to do is, we are going to be asked to vote on these appropriation 
bills, and then in August the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
is going to tell us what we voted on.
  You know what? The people in the 19th District of Texas voted to send 
Randy Neugebauer to the United States Congress to review legislation, 
review appropriations, determine whether they think that that is in 
their best interest, and vote on it. And they kind of think that it 
would be a good idea, before I voted on something, that I knew what was 
in that piece of legislation. But yet we are going to have 
appropriation bills where we are going to vote on those, and then 
earmarks are going to be airdropped into those bills and mysteriously 
are going to be revealed to all of us.
  Can you imagine being in your home district and the paper calls you 
up and says, ``I see what you voted on.'' And you say, ``I'm sorry. I 
haven't read the paper this morning. I haven't seen what I have voted 
on,'' because the earmarks were not disclosed in the bills that we are 
considering. Now, I don't know about in your home district, but in my 
home district that doesn't make a lot of sense.
  What we need is transparency here. We have a lot of very smart people 
in Congress, and while the chairman may believe he is a very smart 
person, and he may be, I don't know, but I believe that I know more 
about the 19th District and some of the priorities in that community 
than the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. And the people in 
the 19th District are relying on Randy Neugebauer to make sure that 
that interest is represented here.
  Now, one of the things that we have to begin to do is to do what we 
said we were going to do. And this group, when they got the leadership, 
they ran on a platform of we are going to be more transparent, that 
people are going to get to see all of the spending bill at one time, 
that they are not going to be in pieces and parts, and there are not 
going to be deals cut in conference; that when these spending bills are 
brought to the floor of the House of Representatives, we are going to 
know what is in those bills. And that should be the way it is.
  But now, as we get into this process, we find out that, no, that is 
not the way it is going to be; that we have a new rule, and the new 
rule is that we will let you know when it is time for you to know.
  Well, you know what? The people in America think that the time for a 
United States Congressman to know what is in a bill is not after he has 
voted or she has voted on that bill, but while and before they voted on 
that bill.
  We said we were going to come down and bring these bills onto the 
floor. We were going to look at them, peruse them, that we were going 
to have time to look at them. And we have not kept that promise, and 
that is a shame. It is a shame that the American taxpayers are getting 
rooked with this appropriation process.
  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have been here in this Chamber for a long time, and I 
was here in the minority back in the early 1980s when my colleagues 
over there were running this place. They ran this place for 40 years. 
For 40 years they ran this place, and they ran the budget right into 
the ground and raised taxes and spent more money.
  But they became reformed, like some ladies of the evening are 
reformed. And they changed their spots and said, we have got to do 
something about spending in the Congress because the Republicans took 
over for 12 years, and they didn't like the way we ran this place. They 
said we were spending too much money, and they went on a tirade time 
after time, saying that they needed to be back in power because they 
were going to be fiscally responsible, and they were going to control 
spending, and they were going to do everything they did not do for 40 
years when they had control.
  I used to walk past my colleagues' offices when we were in charge, 
and they had big signs out in front of their offices: Today the 
national debt went up this much and today spending went up this much, 
and it is all because of the Republicans, they were implying.
  Well, they got control back and what has happened? They have 
authorized $105.5 billion in new spending over the next 5 years. And 
they complain because we want to cut $1.241 million out of this bill. 
Just $1.241 million, not billions but a million. And you don't like 
that. And we are keeping the spending at last year's level.
  My colleagues on this side of the aisle do not want to vote for a 
balanced budget amendment. They will tell you they want to balance the 
budget. But when a balanced budget amendment comes to the floor, they 
almost all vote against it because they know where their power lies, 
and that is in spending and taxes, spending and taxes; and that is what 
they are going to do.
  The tax cuts that President Bush and this Congress, back in the early 
part of the Bush administration, put in place, they want those tax cuts 
to expire. And in Indiana alone, that means that most of the people in 
my State will have a $2,200 per person tax increase because the tax 
cuts expire. They want those to expire. They want to spend more money 
like they are doing right now. They want to extend spending over the 
next 5 years by $105 billion. And yet they are the fiscally responsible 
people in this body.
  I would just like to say to my colleagues and anybody else who is 
paying attention that they really ought to look at history. They really 
ought to look at what the Democrats said before they took power, and 
then they ought to look very seriously at what they are doing right 
now. They want more taxes. They want more spending. They want more 
control. And that is exactly what they did the 40 years they had 
control before the Republicans took office and the Bush administration.
  There is no question that when we were in charge, we spent too much 
money. But compared to them, we are pikers. And the American people are 
going to find out once again how much these people spend and what big 
spenders they are and what big taxers they are. It is going to happen.
  Hopefully, the American people will get the message and put the right 
people back in charge.
  Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina's amendment, and I too will echo the words of the gentleman 
from Indiana that it is disappointing to see what we are doing here 
tonight; when the American people spoke loud and clear last November 
for transparency, for more openness in government, and what we have is 
less transparency and less openness in government.
  I think you will see tonight and tomorrow a series of amendments that 
will try to strike that balance that the American people spoke so 
loudly about in November.
  Tax and spend is back. Today is just the beginning. I believe what we 
will see in the next 11 appropriation bills is a lot more spending that 
the American people are going to be very surprised about.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio's 
yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he made.
  I want to also echo how much I appreciate our colleague from Indiana, 
who has been in the House for several years and came through a time 
when the Democrats were in the majority. And as he points out, they 
were in the majority for 40 years, and they did spend this country 
almost into a situation where we could not get ourselves out of it. And 
I appreciate his bringing that up again. We need to do it over and over 
and over again, reminding the American people what they did.
  I, frankly, thought that when they took the majority this time that 
they would act differently as they had promised in the election. But we 
now have

[[Page 15512]]

what we know is a house of hypocrisy because they promised a lot to the 
American people and they have not fulfilled those promises.
  I have been particularly disappointed in the Blue Dogs. As somebody 
has said, there are these charts all over our office buildings, and 
they tell us over and over and over that the current Federal debt is 
$8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every United States citizen, and 
growing by $1 billion a day. But where are those Blue Dogs when we need 
them? Where are they, calling for fiscal restraint? They are going 
right along with their leadership, going ahead and increasing the 
deficit every day and doing all that they can to increase the deficit. 
I would like to know where they are and why they aren't being 
responsible, as they promised they would be.
  And I want to give us another quote to tie into what my colleagues 
have been saying. This is from Speaker Pelosi in a floor speech she 
made on January 7: ``After years of historic deficits, this new 
Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new 
deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity 
for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.''
  And yet, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, there 
has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years 
that has been authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. 
That doesn't sound to me like we are committed to a higher standard of 
``pay as you go, no new deficit spending.''
  I am also concerned about what this is doing to the American public 
and how cynical it is making the people. They can't count on the 
Democrats to do what they said they were going to do.
  We have also heard tonight that we are trying to slow down the 
process, and I checked about that in terms of what happened last year 
on this bill. It took 2 full legislative days to debate this bill last 
year during this process, and the Democrats offered over 70 amendments 
to that bill. I find it really ironic that the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee now says to us, as the Republicans, that we 
are trying to slow down the process when we are exercising our 
responsibility as American citizens to try to slow down this incredible 
spending that the Democrats want to do, increase the deficit, increase 
taxes. They are saying to us, you are trying to slow down the process.
  They wanted this week to do four complete appropriations bills. They 
frittered away their time for 3 months, blamed it on the minority, 
saying they are not in control of what is going on here.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about what we as 
Members of the House owe the American public, what the people who elect 
this House deserve and expect.
  The first thing they deserve and expect is honest conversation. They 
deserve fiscal responsibility. They deserve openness and transparency. 
They deserve fairness from us.
  Now, the bill in front of us, the appropriation bill in front of us 
tonight, spends about $4.3 billion more than the same type of bill last 
year. That is almost a 14 percent increase. If you look at where the 
increase is, about $4 billion is in first responder grants. Now, that 
would seem on the surface of it to be adequate and fair. That is 
something that the American people might like. The first responders do 
expect and deserve good treatment.
  But when we understand from the past appropriation processes that 
there is almost $5 billion left in this fund for first responders to 
draw from that they have not yet taken out from past appropriations and 
we go ahead and add $4 billion on top of it now, it causes the American 
public to say, Why? What is it that we are getting?
  The American public will stand for things that seem right and seem 
justified, but in order to get the $4 billion to put into this fund, 
our friends on the other side of the aisle are increasing taxes, the 
second largest tax increase in American history.
  Now, how is that important?

                              {time}  2045

  I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico said it best: 
Lowering taxes creates jobs. The corollary of that is also true; 
raising taxes depresses jobs. Raising taxes stagnates the economy. It 
does away with the vitality that any country is looking for.
  So, when Ireland wanted to improve its economic state, it began to 
lower taxes. When it lowered taxes on internal corporations, they had a 
surge of growth. But when they lowered taxes on external corporations, 
companies began to move to Ireland and create a grand, booming economy 
and new jobs in Ireland, and for the first time in the Irish history 
they have moved their economy tremendously forward because they cut 
taxes.
  Now, what we are doing in order to create the $4 billion in just this 
one appropriations bill is to raise taxes. We are going to stagnate the 
American economy. We have created an about 7.7 million jobs in the past 
2 or 3 years. It has been an excellent economy, one that started off in 
a recession, the recession that started at the end of the Clinton 
years, and that recession then moved forward. And 9/11 shocked us into 
the recession again; the Global Crossing scandal, the Enron scandal, 
the WorldCom scandal that shocked us into recession even further. But 
the Bush administration and this Congress passed two successive tax 
cuts which began to revitalize the economy, and that revitalization is 
now at risk because of the way that the Democrats in this Congress are 
willing to put $4 billion into this one fund that has a surplus of over 
$5 billion in it.
  Now, the lady from North Carolina is taking a small attack on this 
whole increase. She's saying, quite simply, let's just don't pay the 
attorneys $1.2 million that they received. A $1.2 million increase is 
not needed for attorneys. The people in this country need good-paying 
jobs, they need a good economy, they need a sound economy and a good 
government, and that good government is being denied in the guise of 
providing another $4 billion into a fund that still has a surplus of 
over $5 billion to it.
  So, tonight I would recommend that we all look carefully at the lady 
from North Carolina's amendment, and that we support it as the first 
increment of many in reducing the cost of this particular bill.
  The deficit spending for the government doesn't occur one large lump 
at a time, it occurs one small piece at a time. And the lady from North 
Carolina has adequately stated, let's just not do it. Let's level fund. 
Let's fund at the same amount that we gave last year.
  That is a reasonable thing for the American people to want to see. 
The American people deserve and expect this fiscal responsibility, for 
us to spend the money as if it were our own because they are trusting 
us with it. They put us in a position of stewardship over that money, 
and yet here we are throwing the money into a fund that is not being 
spent adequately yet. And in order to get more money to put in there, 
we are raising taxes.
  Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Well, we are right back doing what we said we were going to do 
because we think it's important. We are talking about cutting back the 
level of administrative costs that we had last year. And you know, for 
a whole year, almost 2 years, the now majority, then minority, told us 
what a lousy job the Department of Homeland Security was doing, and in 
some ways I agreed with them. Well, I don't give raises to people who 
do lousy jobs. I don't think that's the way you ought to do it. I don't 
think you just automatically get a raise in this world, that your 
department should automatically give an increase if you're not doing 
the job. And in some areas I think a message needs to be sent that you 
hold the line and do the job we paid you to do, and you will be doing 
what we want you to do, and then we will talk about what your needs are 
for the future.
  But I think the present, going back to the 2007 budget numbers, is 
the proper thing to do. I support the

[[Page 15513]]

gentlelady's amendment. It is about telling the American people that we 
are ready to tighten the belt and show fiscal responsibility. We are 
not willing to push spending levels so high, as this process is doing 
in the Democratic plan, to where, once again, if you look at their 
budget, and it has been talked about tonight over and over, if you look 
at it, it is an inevitable road to a massive tax increase, which, quite 
frankly, as my friend from New Mexico was saying, is not good for the 
United States.
  So, once again, let's let the sunshine in. As the sun rises over the 
mountain, let it shine on this appropriation bill. And let this 
appropriation bill be open to all in the United States. And how do we 
do that? Well, one thing we've got to do is we've got to talk with the 
chairman; he has got to be convinced to put some light on the process 
of earmarks.
  And I want to make something very clear, Mr. Chairman, nobody on this 
side of the aisle is fighting for their earmark. We are asking clearly, 
whatever the process may be, we want to be able to see it so we can do 
something about it. The American people told us, do something about 
earmarks. We wrote a law that would work, the Democrats agreed, and now 
all of a sudden the whole process is behind closed doors. And somebody, 
and I am not sure exactly yet who, will be behind those doors to make 
the decisions of how Member-initiated projects will be funded.
  This debate is not about Member-initiated projects. The debate is 
about letting us see, while we still have a chance to do something 
about it, and don't airdrop this into committee where it can't be done. 
I don't think this is hard to figure out. I think this is an easy 
process, and that is a process that the chairman can work with us on 
and come up with a solution for.
  It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have sunshine upon the earmark 
process. And if we get that, I think we will have what the American 
people asked us for in the last election. It is very critical.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  You know, I tried listening to this debate and coming to a conclusion 
that we were discussing something important. But here's my feelings: If 
I was a highly paid Republican consultant, although that's redundant, 
but if that's what I was, I would say to you guys you are making a 
terrible mistake; somebody misinformed you on what bill this is. This 
is not the Labor-H bill, where you would go after labor unions, which 
you always do, where you would not care about funding programs for 
education, which you always do, where you would leave children behind 
for a long, long time.
  I could understand if you did it there. If this was the VA-HUD bill, 
I could understand all these desires to cut because, what the heck, you 
send people to war, and then you don't want to fund the Veterans 
Hospital Administration. I understand that. You don't want to do 
housing. I understand that. If this was any other bill, I would 
understand the strategy. But this is the bill that every right-winged 
radio talk show host says you're the best on, homeland security, 
protecting the homeland, making sure that there is never another 
terrorist attack. And this gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) 
gives you a well-thought-out bill that takes care of the needs for 
protecting the homeland, and you spend the last X amount of hours 
trying to tear it apart because we are spending too much time, and it 
is driving up the deficit.
  Now, I don't know how many people were around when I spoke the last 
time, and I reminded you that there is a deficit; a deficit created by 
going into a war that was built on lies and bad information; a deficit 
created by refusing to bring the troops home now, or soon, like we had 
suggested, but keeping this war going and spending a lot more money; a 
deficit created by reducing the taxes of the richest people in the 
country, while squabbling over giving the little guy a minimum-wage 
increase.
  So, all I want to tell you today, as a friendly person and kind, 
gentle-hearted person that I am, is that someone has given you some bad 
information. This is not any of those other bills that you are known 
for bashing. This is not the one that will leave children behind. This 
is the one that is supposed to be the hallmark of your existence as a 
party. This is national security. This is protecting the homeland. How 
could you cut this bill?
  But you know something? Mr. Price is right. If you are not going to 
protect your administration's programs, then we are certainly not going 
to waste a lot of time over here trying to debate you on it. So, go 
ahead and destroy protecting the Homeland Security Department. Go ahead 
and turn your back on securing the motherland. Go ahead and do it all. 
We will just stand here and wait it out. It may take days, but there's 
where you're heading.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the rules of 
the House state that all discussions must be directed towards the 
Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is true.
  Mr. McHENRY. And Members should be reminded that discussions of 
debate on the floor should abide by decorum and direct their comments 
to the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's point of order is correct. Many Members 
today have failed to live up to that rule. Members should be reminded 
that remarks are to be directed to the Chair.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I greatly appreciate the compassionate concern of the previous 
speaker for the well-being of the Grand Old Party. It seems that 
compassionate conservatism these days is far more contagious than many 
expected and even I would have hoped. I will also tell you that 
prolonged exposure to the speeches of Ronald Reagan will quickly cure 
you of that.
  I would also like to point out to the gentleman, through the Chair, 
that he points out the rich Republican lobbyists that this town is so 
awash in. Well, I have good news for him and bad news for the rich 
Republican lobbyists that are more highly paid these days than the 
Democrats, as they are now in the majority, which is why you will see 
so many foreign cars driving around with Kerry-Edwards bumper stickers 
on them in our Nation's Capital, if not in the Motor City where the UAW 
might find them.
  I was told that we are antilabor. As the grandson and son of union 
members, whose voting record was better on CAFTA than 13 Members of the 
new majority, I take umbrage at that statement. As the son of 
schoolteachers, who has a good voting record on education matters, I 
take umbrage at that. And in terms of voting to send our troops to war 
and then not voting to fund our veterans, I would point out that in the 
new majority there are those who voted to send our troops to war and 
then voted not to fund our soldiers. So let us be careful with our 
accusations and how we impugn one's motivations.
  Interestingly, we are not content with the war overseas, and now we 
see a case where we are going to engage in class warfare over here at 
home at a very time when we should be united.
  It is these types of situations that, when I try to explain 
government and what I do to my wife and I's 10-year-old daughter 
Amelia, that I spend a lot of time scratching my head, which would 
explain my balding pate, because I find this place very frustrating.
  To the gentleman, I know the majority has tried very hard to work on 
this bill, and it has been called a ``delicate, well-thought-out 
document.'' If that were the case, how can $1.2 billion be accepted in 
such a facile fashion at the drop of a hat to simply pacify a minority 
and to get them to stop addressing this bill? $1.2 million remains a 
lot of money. And it would be, I would hope, wrong of people to 
perceive that $1.2 million could either be taken from or put into a 
bill simply for reasons of convenience and operations of the floor of 
the United States House of Representatives.

[[Page 15514]]

  But these are the problems that tend to come with governing, as my 
own party found out. We got to sit in power for 12 years, some of us 
for far less than that, and we watched and we watched and we watched as 
the spending and the debt continued to mount and our Nation's taxpayers 
and families and our party was no longer entrusted by the American 
people to govern. But I remember at the time I would point out that a 
lot of those appropriation bills that so many people decried throughout 
that election were vastly bipartisan exercises in governance, and that 
there were many votes on this side of the aisle for the excessive 
spending, and many votes on the other side of the aisle for excessive 
spending.

                              {time}  2100

  The rub then came when the majority party at the time, our Republican 
Party, was accused of spending too much on too many things and for 
deficit spending.
  Today we flash forward, and what do we find? We find a situation 
where we have just recently passed a budget. I didn't vote for it. None 
of my Republican colleagues voted for it. But it was duly passed.
  What did that budget do? That budget promised billions in new 
spending in reserve accounts. Billions in new spending. What else did 
it promise? What else did it promise? It promised the largest tax 
increase in American history to pay for it.
  Now, today, as we go through this appropriation process, we see that 
some of the promises they are attempting to keep in the new majority. 
That would be the billions and billions in new spending. Does one not 
believe that they are going to do everything they can to go through and 
have the largest tax increase in American history to pay for it, or, in 
the alternative, they will continue to see the deficit and the debt 
mount?
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for 
her wonderful amendment this evening.
  Mr. Chairman, I am new to this body, and one thing I found is that in 
Minnesota, we have a little bit different definition of 
``transparency.''
  ``Transparency'' in Minnesota means an individual stands on one side 
of a divide, and they can look through to see something on the other. 
Here in the case of this bill, you have the taxpayer and you have 
Members of Congress trying to look through a divide, and what they see 
on the other side is a very interesting definition of ``transparency.''
  Mr. Chairman, the first thing that they see is a slush fund for 
earmarks. And this is something I don't quite understand; the Democrat 
majority, they are leaving lump sums of money without a specified 
purpose in legislation being considered by this House and then later 
authorizing those funds for earmarks in a closed-door conference 
committee. It is just a real interesting definition of transparency, 
because the Democrats have created now, Mr. Chairman, a slush fund for 
earmarks which will be funded by the largest tax increase in American 
history. This is just so interesting to me, this new definition of 
``transparency.''
  Also a part of this definition is that earmarks will no longer be 
allowed to be challenged here on this House floor because under the 
Democrats' rules, Members will be prohibited from challenging 
individual earmarks in bills on the floor or debating their merit as 
long as there is a list of earmarks in the bill.
  But what is interesting, Mr. Chairman, is that it won't matter if 
this list is flat-out wrong, if it is incomplete, or whether the 
earmark which is one that a Member would like to debate is missing from 
the list. It is just a real interesting definition of ``transparency.''
  The ``truth in labeling'' that we are seeing in this bill is also 
interesting, Mr. Chairman, because earmark-laden bills can now be 
certified as earmark-free. Real interesting. I guess it depends on what 
the meaning of ``free'' is.
  Democrats will be allowing their bills to be certified by the 
majority as earmark-free even if they contain earmarks. So as long as 
you take a magic wand, Mr. Chairman, and wave it over the bill, you can 
just say, ``Voila, it is now earmark-free.'' It is kind of like having 
fat-free french fries. It is something we would all love to have, but 
it just isn't possible. As long as any bill is certified by Chairman 
Obey as earmark-free, then, under the House rules, it is earmark-free.
  This rule was exploited earlier in February, Mr. Chairman, by the 
House Democrats when they passed their continuing resolution that 
contained hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded, hidden 
earmarks, kind of like those fat-free french fries.
  The largest tax increase in history, Mr. Chairman, is in the budget 
that was passed by the House Democrats, and that will likely be the 
story. Even though the majority likes to claim otherwise, they will 
raise taxes by at least $217 billion, Mr. Chairman, in all likelihood 
most likely $392 billion, and will raise marginal rates, except for the 
10 percent rate, and capital gains rates and dividend rates and prevent 
a full repeal of the death tax, items the American public have 
indicated they are not for.
  Speaker of the House Pelosi had said earlier that the budget should 
be ``a statement of our National values.'' Well, not only is this 
budget, Mr. Chairman, the largest in American history, it will sanction 
the largest tax increase in history upon more American families, 
because people in Minnesota, Mr. Chairman, my home State, will be 
paying an average of more than $3,000 a year more to this town, 
Washington, D.C. Again, a very interesting definition of 
``transparency.''
  The budget is going to trigger more tax hikes, and it will greatly 
increase domestic spending. It will increase nondefense appropriations 
by $23 billion above what we spent in 2007. That is in addition, Mr. 
Chairman, to the $6 billion that the Democrats have already added to 
the omnibus bill and more than $20 billion in the war supplemental.
  The American people, Mr. Chairman, are very concerned as well about 
the unlimited emergency spending, because the Democrat budget is going 
to abandon the emergency set-aside that was established in last year's 
budget resolution and change what Congress can call an emergency, 
unlimited exemption, exempting the Senate spending bill from any 
limits.
  This is really, Mr. Chairman, putting the next election above the 
next generation, something that none of us should want to do. The 
Democrats in this bill, unfortunately, have ignored the warnings of the 
entitlement crisis. Let's not forget, we have heard from the 
Comptroller General David Walker.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mrs. Bachmann was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mrs. BACHMANN. Mr. Chairman, the Democrat majority has once again 
ignored the dozens of experts, including Chairman Greenspan, including 
the Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, and also the Comptroller 
David Walker, who have pleaded with us, pleaded, Mr. Chairman, with the 
Congress and given us repeated warnings about the unsustainable rate of 
entitlement spending.
  This is our upcoming economic tsunami, Mr. Chairman. Their budget has 
turned a blind eye to the impending crisis that is coming upon this 
next generation. Who among us can look in the eyes of the next 
generation, knowing what we know of the bill that will be handed to 
them for the party that we are all having today? Unfunded net 
liabilities. And yet we can stand here and do nothing to address the 
concerns and put off any major reform for at least 5 years?
  Now is the time, Mr. Chairman, to have true transparency, and I am 
sad to say that this bill does none of that.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, many of our colleagues on the Democratic side of the 
aisle, and I have been listening to this debate for the last 5 hours, 
have lamented our efforts to highlight objections to not only this 
bill, but also the underlying process by which all of the

[[Page 15515]]

appropriations bills, 11, and then 12 later on, will be brought to the 
House floor this year.
  I believe it is crucial that we take this opportunity to register our 
strong opposition to the process, while I rise in support of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina's amendment to cut $1.2 billion out of 
this homeland security appropriations bill, and that is not a small 
chunk of change. But it is a process which we believe is neither fair 
nor open nor in the best interests of the American taxpayer.
  Late last year the new majority in this House assured the American 
public that it would bring transparency and openness to the 
appropriations process and specifically to this practice which we and 
the general public very well know now, as they campaigned on this issue 
last fall, the practice of earmarking.
  At a minimum we believe that this commitment, and I think the 
American people believe as well, or they wouldn't have gained the 
majority, that it would equal that of the Republican majority in the 
last Congress, that the sponsors of earmarks would be identified in the 
bills themselves, whether they were authorizing bills, appropriations 
bills, indeed even in narrowly drawn tax bills, so that Members could 
debate and challenge those earmarks if they were found to be egregious 
on the House floor. Apparently the Democratic majority has very 
different definitions of ``transparency'' and ``openness'' than we do 
and than the American people do that elected them to this new majority.
  The respected chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, how long has he been in this body, 39 years? I think he 
is going on his 20th term. He has been a former member of and chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee. He is one of the most respected 
Members, one of the most knowledgeable Members. He clearly knows what 
he is doing in regard to not putting these earmarks in the 
appropriations bill, which he knew would be coming to this floor under 
an open rule so that we could have a free, a fair, an open debate.
  We would accept some earmarks. They are not all bad. Certainly they 
are not all bad. But the ones that are egregious, that we should have 
an opportunity to debate on both sides of the aisle and strike.
  Now, the chairman has said, well, you know, we are going to go ahead 
after we finish all these bills, these 11 bills, we are going to 
publish all of the earmarks that we are considering airdropping in the 
conference report. They are going to have transparency. They are going 
to see the light of day, because we are going to put them in the 
Congressional Record 2 months from now, in August.
  But that does not give the Members of this body on either side of the 
aisle an opportunity. Yes, you can see them, and maybe it will remove 
the opportunity for the Senate to use a point of order to strike some 
of these amendments that have been airdropped because all of a sudden 
they have been published in the Congressional Record. That is not the 
same as having the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, on the floor to debate 
and to vote up or down some of these egregious earmarks.
  Now, what I want to suggest in my time remaining, I want to suggest 
to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, why don't you simply 
then in August bring a bill?
  The CHAIRMAN. As the Chair held in response to the gentleman from 
North Carolina previously, Members must address the Chair and not other 
Members. In the same vein, the Chair must correct the gentleman from 
Georgia.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, what I would suggest is that very easily a package of 
these earmarks, I don't know how many are going to be put in the final 
conference report; if there are 30,000 earmarks, maybe 15,000 of them 
in the aggregate in these 11 bills will be published in the 
Congressional Record and then eventually airdropped in the conference 
report.
  Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that a bill or resolution through 
the Appropriations Committee could come to the floor of this House 
under an open rule, and let us at that point take each one of those 
earmarks, maybe specified for each of the 11 appropriations bills, and 
then have our opportunity to vote up or down.
  I have been listening to the debate, again, like I said, for a couple 
or 3 or 4 hours, and nobody has made that suggestion. So I want to try 
to improve the process, Mr. Chairman, and I want to make that 
suggestion to the Democratic leadership and to the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee. It is not too late to do the right thing. We 
feel like you have done the wrong thing and shut the process down. It 
is not what the people want, but it is not too late to see the error.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, again, the comments that these are 
dilatory amendments, the subcommittee chairman from North Carolina 
saying, well, you want to strike a little bit of change here and there, 
and you are just trying to slow the process down. In some cases, yes. 
In some cases, like the amendment that we are discussing right now, the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina, the gentleman from Washington Mr. 
Reichert, who is a ranking member on the subcommittee, these are not 
dilatory amendments. These are important policy amendments.
  But we are outraged by the policy. And to take my time and make the 
suggestion of what you can do to correct this, I hope you will take 
that to heart. I hope the chairman, Mr. Chairman, will take that to 
heart and give us an opportunity, if not now, at least in August, to 
vote on these earmarks. That is exactly what you promised the American 
people, and you need to deliver on that promise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair wishes to remind Members, as the gentleman 
from North Carolina pointed out, that remarks are to be addressed to 
the Chair.
  The Chair will admonish Members not to direct remarks to other 
Members, to the Democratic leadership, or anyone other than the Chair. 
It is not that the Chair wants all of the attention, but the gentleman 
from North Carolina has insisted on the rules, and the Committee will 
abide by them.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this issue, and I commend 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina for presenting this issue.
  The hour is getting late, but I think it is extremely helpful and 
extremely clarifying for those watching to appreciate that there is a 
distinction between the different folks rising this evening and drawing 
attention to the amount of spending.
  The gentleman who is presenting this bill said in all sincerity that 
this bill wasn't about earmarks and it wasn't about ideology. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, I would beg to differ. It is all about ideology, and it 
certainly has a lot to do with earmarks.
  The ideology we talk about being present in this bill and every other 
appropriations bill that I have seen that has been filed so far is that 
there is one side that believes that spending ought to increase to a 
fare-thee-well. And there is the other side which believes there ought 
to be responsibility to that spending.
  We have already seen the majority party, so far this year, increase 
authorization for spending by over 50 billion new dollars. We have 
already seen the new majority adopt a budget which has, depending on 
who you talk to, the largest tax increase, or the second largest tax 
increase, in the history of our Nation. That tax increase is to pay for 
the spending.
  So, yes, Mr. Chairman, it is all about ideology. It is also about 
earmarks because what we have been presented is a new policy by the 
majority party that allows for a slush fund, a slush fund for earmarks 
in virtually any appropriations bill that comes to the floor.
  So I commend my colleague from Georgia who spoke just before me and

[[Page 15516]]

offered a solution, an opportunity to bring greater sunshine and 
greater light to those earmarks. I think that was a well-thought-out 
proposal.
  I suspect there are people watching and saying, what is it that we 
desire? Why is it that we are drawing attention to what we believe to 
be an egregious rule? Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest what we 
desire is a decrease in irresponsible spending. It is that 
irresponsible spending that is causing tax bills for Americans to mount 
up to unacceptable levels. And, consequently, we believe the slush fund 
for earmarks ought to be done with, ought to go away. The American 
people ought to know who is spending their hard-earned tax money, and 
they ought to be able to hold those folks accountable.
  I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the solution to the dilemma in 
which we currently find ourselves is to have the chairman of 
Appropriations or somebody in leadership on the majority side say, we 
won't do that, we won't bring about any earmarks in a conference 
committee that aren't agreed to by each and every Member of the House 
individually. Individually, that's what we proposed. In fact, that is 
what we enacted in our own bill, in our own rules last session.
  Mr. Chairman, there is a solution to this. There is an opportunity 
for us to move onward and make it so the American people are able to 
have their say, to have each and every one of their Representatives 
have their say about the kind of spending that is going on here in 
Washington.
  And it is not just our side. If you take the words of the Members of 
the new majority from the not-too-distant past, after the recent 
election, when the the majority leader said, ``We are going to adopt 
rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't 
legislate in the dark of night, and the public and other Members can 
see what is being done.'' That is a quote.
  Here is another quote. ``Words will not do it. I have a good 
relationship with Representative Roy Blunt. I have a good relationship 
with Representative John Boehner. We'll work together. We'll include 
them in decision-making.
  ``To the extent that we create an atmosphere of mutual respect, the 
American people will feel more comfortable with Congress.''
  Mr. Chairman, I suspect you know what I know, and that is that the 
recent data on the respect with which the American people hold this 
Congress and this majority is at an all-time low. And I would suggest, 
Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons that it is at an all-time low is 
because of the kind of policies that are being put into place by this 
majority that make it so that light cannot shine on the amount of 
spending that is being done in this Congress.
  I urge adoption of the amendment. I urge a change to the earmark 
policy.
  Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  First, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her 
amendment. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed by 
some comments I have heard from the other side of the aisle that 
somehow this is not a worthy debate. I believe one of my colleagues 
said, I thought I would come to the floor and find us debating 
something important.
  How we spend the people's money, how much money we take from 
hardworking Americans is a very important matter. How much of the bread 
we take off of the table of that hardworking teacher in Malakoff, 
Texas, is a very important matter. How much money we take from the 
fireman, the fireman in Crandall, Texas, who is working to ensure our 
safety, and how much of the bread we take off of his table is a very 
important matter, Mr. Chairman. And not just how much money, but once 
we take that money, how we spend that money.
  We know that the people, the people, decry how the practice of 
earmarks has been practiced in this House. And I wished when the 
Republicans were in the majority we would have done a better job. I was 
often disappointed. I, myself, don't request earmarks, although I know 
there are many that are worthy.
  But at least when this party was in the majority, they woke up and 
heard the voices of people and said, we need reform. We need 
accountability. We need transparency. And Members were given that 
ability to focus sunlight, sunshine, on those earmarks, and they were 
allowed a process by which to strike them from the bill.
  Now I read a number of quotes from our new Democrat majority 
leadership. The Speaker said, ``I would just as soon do away with 
them,'' referring to earmarks. She said shortly after becoming Speaker, 
``We have placed a moratorium on earmarks until a new reform process is 
in place to ensure the integrity of every earmark that is funded.'' A 
new reform process.
  So now we discover, Mr. Chairman, that the new reform process is to 
take it out of the sunshine, hide it in the darkness, take away 
Members' ability to strike it from the bill, and give that, albeit 
apparently, to one individual who apparently is all knowing, all 
seeing, and all powerful when it comes to these earmarks.
  I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people will sit 
idly by for this practice. Already the Third Estate is letting the 
people know what is going on. I don't want to personalize the debate, 
but let me paraphrase from the Wisconsin State Journal. I won't talk 
about individual Members, but I will talk about the majority.
  The Wisconsin State Journal: The Democrats are, and I paraphrase, 
``now dodging the very reforms they helped to generate.'' This will 
``prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until 
it is too late.'' Wisconsin State Journal, June 7.
  The Cleveland Plain Dealer, ``Five months after,'' and again I 
paraphrase, the Democrat majority, ``took control, the promises remain 
unfulfilled.'' And what we have, ``That's a secretive process, and its 
final product gets a `yes' or `no' vote in each Chamber. This means 
earmarks will sail through before the press or even most Members of 
Congress can examine or challenge them.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer of 
June 10.
  The Mobile, Alabama, Press Register. ``Democrats work ATM,'' 
automatic teller machine. ``But now that they control the ATM, the 
Democrats are finding all sorts of excuses to keep the earmark 
dispenser open for business. Democrats are reneging on their vows of 
fiscal responsibility just a few months after they won their chance to 
load the ATM.'' The Mobile Press Register, June 8.
  And the list goes on and on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, there ought to be a message loud and clear from the 
last election. The people want to reform earmarks. This bill, this 
Democrat majority, this process, takes us in the exact opposite 
direction, and it is one more reason we need to support the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I think at this time of night, it is good to remind 
those who might have been watching or listening why we are here. First, 
this bill is $2 billion over the President's request. So it is spending 
that we simply cannot justify moving forward with.
  The second reason we are here debating and still on, I think, the 
first paragraph of the bill is that the majority has decided to keep 
earmarks secret until this bill passes and until we get to the 
conference report when it will be too late to amend or to strike or to 
challenge those individual earmarks. That is why we are here.
  The distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee has said 
that if this process does not go well, we may just have to get rid of 
earmarks completely. That would be wonderful. I would gladly sit down 
for the rest of the appropriations season if we were to do that.
  But if we are not going to get rid of earmarks completely, at least 
we should have a process that even the majority party has said that we 
need, one that has transparency, one where we actually know what is in 
the bills, one that has both transparency and accountability.
  If you have transparency, if you have Members' names next to earmarks 
and

[[Page 15517]]

an indication what entity that earmark is to support, that is a good 
thing. That is an element of transparency, and it is a good thing that 
the Democrats put that in their reform bill in January. It was a good 
move, and I think all of us applaud them for it.
  But what good is transparency if you don't have accountability with 
it? What good is it to know which name is next to an earmark if that 
request letter is just buried over at the Appropriations Committee? And 
none of us have seen them; there are some 30,000 earmark request 
letters sitting over in the Appropriations Committee.
  The distinguished chairman said last year that we simply had gotten 
out of control with earmarks and there is no way, with the staff that 
we have, to police these earmarks. He was right. He was right. If you 
don't believe him, you can ask a couple of the Members who are in 
prison today. We simply haven't policed that process very well.
  I would submit it is beyond reason that the Appropriations Committee 
and its staff can alone police 30,000-some earmark requests. It is 
simply impossible. So why not release those letters and let the other 
Members see them? Some 30,000, if you do the math, that amounts to 73 
earmarks or so per Member. You can't expect the Appropriations 
Committee to police those earmarks. It is beyond them.
  I think they make a valiant attempt, and that is great, but it is 
simply beyond reason that you can police that many earmarks. So release 
them. Let others see them. Let outside groups and others help in that 
regard instead of keeping those earmark requests secret, and keeping 
earmarks out of the bills until those bills pass and then drop them in 
at a time when it is too late to challenge them.
  If you want transparency, that's great. Let's have it. Let's also 
have accountability. That is what we want with this process, and that 
is why we are here tonight. That is why we are only on the first 
paragraph of this very large bill.
  I would suspect until we reach an agreement that either we will have 
no earmarks, which would be the best in my view, until we reach that 
kind of agreement; or we will proceed under a different fashion, we 
will say we are going to have real accountability, real transparency,
  I think we are going to have this same kind of activity.

                              {time}  2130

  Because I think that this institution deserves better. Certainly the 
taxpayers deserve better than the process that they have been given 
over the past several years.
  So I'm pleased that the gentlewoman has offered this amendment. I do 
support it. There will be many more amendments, I believe, tonight. I 
plan to offer others myself.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  We've had a long discussion tonight about my colleague from North 
Carolina's amendment. I certainly thank her for offering it. I think 
we've had a healthy debate about the size and scope of government.
  I think what the American people understand, Mr. Chairman, is that we 
should have this debate on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, our 
colleagues should have this grand debate about whether or not to 
increase the size and scope of government, even in areas of grave 
national importance. This is a serious debate. This is a very serious 
debate, and I think the American people should be proud of the kind of 
debate we're having today on the House floor.
  As a conservative, I can see that there's waste, fraud and abuse in 
all areas of government, even in the Department of Homeland Security. I 
think we should be wise with how we spend the taxpayer dollar, even in 
the Department of Homeland Security.
  Even if this President requested tons more money, billions more 
money, as a conservative I would say, no, Mr. President, we don't need 
those billions of dollars in new spending. And I must tell you, as a 
conservative I've been outspoken, trying to hold this President 
accountable when it comes to spending.
  Yet my Democrat colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would say the President 
requested money, more money for the Department of Homeland Security. I 
think that was valid in this time of war, in this time of great 
national security issues.
  The President requested more money for intelligence spending; yet 
this Democrat majority in this House, Mr. Chairman, said no to the 
President's increase when it came to intelligence spending. Instead, 
Mr. Chairman, the majority decided to spend intelligence money on this 
debate about climate change, about global warming. I'm not exactly 
sure, Mr. Chairman, what this majority was thinking when they allocated 
intelligence resources, intelligence money to the debate on global 
warming, but they did. They said that was just.
  When the President requested more money for homeland security, a $3 
billion increase over last year's funds, the Democrats said that is not 
enough, and they went $2 billion over that. Mr. Chairman, even in 
Washington, D.C., $2 billion is a lot of money.
  We know that the Department of Homeland Security's well funded, and 
what we're having a debate on here today, tonight, Mr. Chairman, is 
whether or not we should lard up the Department of Homeland Security 
with more bureaucrats at the top level; not people that are screening 
the airports at the lowest level, not people who are out gathering 
intelligence at the lowest level, but they're larding it up for the 
Secretary's budget, for the management's budget. They're not allocating 
money to get it out on the streets. They're allocating money for more 
bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. And as a conservative, even if 
it's a Republican in the White House and a Republican administration, I 
will say no to that. We don't need more bureaucrats here in Washington, 
D.C.
  We need more agents out on the streets tracking terrorists. We need 
more intelligence capabilities out in the streets, catching the bad 
guy, finding out what they're doing, how they're plotting and planning 
against us. That's the debate we should have here on this House floor, 
Mr. Chairman. That's the debate the American people want and deserve.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important debate about how we're going to 
allocate our homeland security dollars. Should we put it with more 
bureaucrats sitting in an office in Washington, D.C., or should we 
spend that money in a better way, to make sure when you go to the 
airport you have an airport screener, somebody to get you through that 
line effectively, people that are well-trained to track the bad guys 
through our intelligence capabilities, that actually have good plans in 
place if, God forbid, heaven forbid, we have another attack? We don't 
need more money for bureaucrats in Washington. We need more funding to 
get the bad guys.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a serious debate here tonight, and I think this 
has been a very worthy debate of this House. My friends and colleague, 
Mr. Chairman, have all stated their opinions tonight, and I think 
there's a good consensus from the American people, good consensus from 
the American people that we need to cut spending to a greater degree.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, the 110th Congress now under Democrat leadership, we're 
6 months into this Congress now. If you think about it, that's one-
quarter of the way toward the completion of this term. The American 
public at home should be thinking, what has this new Democrat 
leadership wrought in many different areas?
  What has it wrought? The largest tax increase in U.S. history, the 
breaking of promises during the campaign of openness, the repealing of 
transparency that the previous majority had instituted, repealing of 
the openness in the area of earmarks and budget process reform.
  And now on top of that, on top of the largest tax increase in 
history, on top of the repealing of transparency and openness, slush 
funds, slush funds in

[[Page 15518]]

the very appropriations bills that the majority campaigned on that they 
would bring a new air of relief to this House.
  The other side has said they were trying to slow down the process, 
that the amendments that we make are not about the bills. Well, Mr. 
Chairman, this bill is a homeland security bill, and as long as I have 
breath, I will come to this floor and speak about trying to improve 
homeland security in the legislation that passes this House.
  I represent a district that was tremendously impacted by 9/11. I do 
not go to a county in my district where I do not meet victims of 9/11 
or family members or people who did business with or are related with 
victims of 9/11.
  While the rest of the world and the rest of this country may see 9/11 
as something that is going by year after year and less and less part of 
their lives, mine is a district that remembers it every day. Mine is a 
district that remembers it every year still on its anniversary.
  So, homeland security legislation, and amendments such as this one 
which work to try to improve that legislation, are incredibly important 
to me. And more important than that, it is incredibly important to my 
district.
  This piece of legislation that's before us deals with the financial 
aspect of homeland security. Quite candidly, this is not just a matter 
of dollars and cents when we talk about dollars and what we spend here 
in Washington. What we spend here impacts upon the Federal budget, but 
more important than that, it impacts upon the family budget.
  What the average family in Bergen County, Sussex County, Passaic 
County, Warren County have to do every day in their lives in order to 
get by is impacted by what we do on this floor and what we will do on 
this amendment later on tonight on how much we spend. It may be vast 
numbers here in Washington, but it is dollars and cents back at home.
  I have the honor to serve on the Budget Committee, and on that 
committee for the 4-plus years that I've been here, I felt there was 
one thing that both sides of the aisle generally agreed to, I thought, 
and that was that we have a problem in this country with regard to our 
deficit. The difference, however, is on how to resolve that issue.
  The one side, as we see now in control, sees that problem and 
continues to exacerbate it by spending more, more than the President 
asked for, more than this side of the aisle would suggest is needed, 
more than the American public would think that we should be spending on 
the American Federal budget.
  We had looked to the other side after this last election to give us 
relief and give us reform, and what did they give us instead? The 
largest tax increase in history and significant spending on top of 
that. I guess the two really go hand in hand. If you are going to 
enlarge budgets without end, well, you're going to have to look back to 
the American public and ask them to dig ever deeper into their pockets, 
into their wallets and send it here to Washington. You're going to have 
to ask the American public to send their hard-earned tax dollars to 
Washington to spend on bureaucrats in offices and other such matters as 
opposed to allowing the American public to keep it for themselves, for 
their health care need, for their children's education, for their food 
and their housing.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Garrett of New Jersey was allowed to 
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman 
for her amendment, even though the amount that she's looking to reduce 
in the scheme of things is merely a de minimis amount as we look at it 
here in Washington.
  But let me tell you when we get home and we are able to tell them 
that we were able to start the process of returning the dollars back to 
you, the American taxpayer, and still provide the significant and 
essential homeland security that is vastly important to the people in 
my district, they will say to this side of the aisle and to the other 
side of the aisle as well that they agree with us; job well done.


  Amendment Offered by Mr. McHenry to Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. 
                                  Foxx

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. McHenry to amendment No. 33 
     offered by Ms. Foxx:
       Strike ``$1,241,000''
       Replace with ``$8,961,000''

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is a second-
degree amendment to my colleague from North Carolina's amendment to the 
bill.
  This second-degree amendment is very simple, very straightforward. 
Instead of striking $1,241,000 from this legislation in the Secretary 
of Homeland Security's personal budget for his office, we've increased 
that number to actually $8.9 million.
  What this amount difference is a result of the debate we've had here 
on the floor. What is very good is that we've had an open debate, an 
open rule, one of the rare that we've had in this new Democrat 
majority, Mr. Chairman. This open rule has allowed a free form of 
debate, which has allowed all my colleagues to engage in this 
discussion about decreasing the size and scope of government and 
curbing the excess of the growth of bureaucracy here in Washington.
  As a result of this debate, I've analyzed the last amendment debates 
we had. My colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) offered an 
amendment that would take the Secretary's budget back to the 2007 
level. His amendment would reduce the spending by $9,961,000. Well, 
that amendment failed, unfortunately. I'm very happy, though, that my 
colleague from California offered it, though, because the House got to 
vote on fiscal discipline, and 201 Members of this body voted in favor 
of striking that $9,961,000 from the bill. Unfortunately, though, 221 
voted ``no,'' so the amendment failed.
  Well, watching the last series of votes, I also noticed that our 
colleagues voted to strike $79,000 from the Secretary's budget, as well 
as $300,000 from the Secretary's budget, which through this debate I 
really analyze that. I really had to think about those votes and see 
what the will of the body was on restraining government spending and 
the rise in growth and the bureaucracy here in Washington.

                              {time}  2145

  What I realized is that maybe my colleagues weren't ready to cut $9.9 
million. But perhaps, just perhaps, we could try this out and see if my 
colleagues would cut $8.9 million. Now, it's not quite as much as I 
would like to cut from the fat of the Secretary's budget, but it's 
close. It's a savings to the taxpayers.
  So let's try this out. Let's have a vote on this; let's have a debate 
on whether or not we can cut $8.9 million from a budget, if I may 
state, from a budget as proposed in this Chamber of $36 billion, if I 
have that correct. Can we cut $8.9 million from a $36 billion budget?
  Well, my colleagues, 221 of them said ``no'' to this cutting $9.9 
million. Let's see if they will cut $8.9 million; it's close, and it's 
$1 million. The American taxpayers understand the difference in $1 
million. But if we could cut $8.9 million, I think we would be happy. 
It would be a step in the right direction.
  I hope my colleagues concur.
  My colleagues would say ``yes'' to cutting $300,000 from this $36 
billion bill. They cut $300,000. They cut $79,000. But I wonder if my 
colleagues would, instead of cutting $1.2 million, which my colleague 
from North Carolina seeks to do, if they would cut $8.9 million.
  Let's try this out. Let's have a debate on whether or not $8.9 
million is enough money to cut from this $36 billion bill. Let's see if 
we can return that money to the taxpayers. Let's see if we can reduce 
the deficit so we can balance this budget. Let's see if we can cut 
spending so we can continue the tax cuts and continue the economic 
growth that we have seen over the last 5 years. Let's see if we can 
make sure that the American taxpayers get to

[[Page 15519]]

keep more of what they earn. Let's see if we can cut off some fat, even 
just a little fat from the Department of Homeland Security. Let's see 
what we can do to reduce bureaucracy here in Washington.
  I am not sure if $8.9 million is the right amount, but I would like 
to hear from my colleagues to see if they agree or if they disagree.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. McHenry was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. McHENRY. I would like to hear from my colleagues on whether or 
not $8.9 million, $8,961,000 is the right amount to cut from this $36 
billion bill. I'd love to hear this debate. Some may say it's 10 
million, others may say it's 6 million. Let's have this debate. It's 
only 10 minutes till 10:00 tonight.
  We have plenty of time to continue this debate. The American 
taxpayers can watch us here on C-SPAN and see what good work we are 
doing here in Washington and see if we are being effective with their 
dollars.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a modest 
reality check. I hope that's helpful.
  The gentleman from North Carolina gives an impression of great 
precision in wanting to cut $8,961,000, and he suggests that we might 
want to debate tonight whether that's exactly the right figure. He 
suggests that without indicating, as far as I can tell, any fact or any 
premise on which this very precise number is based. So we will await 
that with interest, exactly why this much and no more and no less.
  Let me offer a little reality check in the form of the language from 
the committee report. Our committee recommended $14 million for the 
general counsel.
  By the way, that's the start of understanding this. This isn't about 
bureaucracy, in general. It's not about government fat, in general. It 
certainly has nothing to do with entitlements. It's not even about the 
Secretary's office, in general. This is about the general counsel's 
office at the Department of Homeland Security. This figure was arrived 
at after close consultation with that office. We recommended $14 
million for the Office of General Counsel.
  Now, we didn't give them everything they wanted. President Bush 
requested $1.2 million above this. We cut that. We did not grant that 
full amount.
  Now, 77 staff, 77 is what that appropriation pays for or would pay 
for. That's equal to the current on-board strength. We do say in the 
report, and maybe the gentleman disagrees with this, that as vacancies 
arise in the office, the committee directs the Department to fill the 
vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal law.
  Now, CFIUS, you might remember, is the Committee on Foreign 
Investments in the United States, better known by reference, perhaps, 
to the Dubai ports deal. You will remember a great deal of discussion 
in this body on both sides of the aisle on how CFIUS needs to be beefed 
up and do a better job. We don't want to have another Dubai ports deal.
  That's what we are responding to in consultation with the Department. 
They need some positions dedicated to those CFIUS reviews so that we do 
them right. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something 
wrong with the number 77?
  That's the rationale. Since nobody else has provided it, I will. 
That's the rationale for what the committee has done here, as we said, 
not granting everything that the administration wanted, but trying to 
make certain that the staff has the strength they need to fulfill their 
present obligations and to move in this new direction which CFIUS has 
provided. I hope that's helpful.
  Mr. TERRY. I move to strike the last word.
  I do appreciate the gentleman's secondary or second-degree amendment. 
The good chairman stood up and gave an eloquent argument about what the 
primary and secondary amendment is not about. But what it is about, in 
my opinion, is the hypocrisy in two different areas, the hypocrisy of 
having boards out front of their offices talking about the mounting 
debt and then the first appropriation bill increasing the discretionary 
spending by 13.6 percent. Then, also, the hypocrisy of talking about a 
culture of corruption and how it spills over to earmarks.
  Well, the way to cure that is transparency. The first appropriation 
bill out of the block hides them so we can't debate them on the House 
floor. That's what this is about. This is why we're upset and coming to 
the floor and discussing this issue. I'm very frustrated with this 
process of hiding these earmarks.
  Well, they are not being hidden, they are just not being included in 
this bill so they can be dropped in at a later date, at a time when we 
don't have an opportunity to review them and determine them on an 
individual basis, the merits or lack of merit for any specific project 
listed. That's atrocious.
  What's mostly atrocious and frustrating and hypocritical about it is 
the fact that these folks campaigned on reforming that, and they were 
the ones to throw out all the good forms of transparency so they can 
hide them from us.
  That's wrong, and that's why we're down here. That's why we're down 
here, to show our frustration with blowing the lid off the spending now 
and hiding these earmarks at a time when the people want to know what 
we're doing with earmarks here. They want them to stop. At the very 
least, they want to make sure that they're valid ones and not Members' 
pet projects.
  Now, the gentleman from North Carolina with the second-degree 
amendment, you indicated you wanted to expand what Chairman Price 
mentioned as well.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding.
  Let me answer the chairman's questions, because I do appreciate my 
colleague's leadership, and he has crafted, largely, a good bill.
  My disagreements are oftentimes with my Republican administration, my 
colleague in the White House who is of my same party. What they have 
requested here is a good bit more bureaucracy at the top.
  Let's face it, they have mismanaged the Department of Homeland 
Security. Look at the response to Katrina. I agree wholeheartedly with 
my Democrat colleagues. But I am of the opinion that simply because 
they have mismanaged does not simply mean you add to their budget.
  I appreciate my colleagues' clapping. I appreciate my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle clapping for me. That is so wonderful. I am 
excited about that. I am hopeful they will vote for my amendment, 
especially my good friends back there.
  But let me tell you something. What I am attempting to do is get the 
numbers back to last year's spending level, to make sure we maintain 
this. My colleague from North Carolina said he spoke with the 
administration and realized that they wanted this amount of money. I 
have spoken with the taxpayers. They want some more of their money 
back. They don't want to deal with tax increases.
  We need to get back to closer to last year's spending levels on 
management of the bureaucracy. We saw how the border is still porous. 
Let's put that money into the border.
  We see how FEMA was mismanaged. Let's pour that money into getting 
people out there with supplies when catastrophic events come. But let's 
not spend on our bureaucracy here in Washington. Let's bring those 
numbers back closer to last year's budget levels.
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you for your explanation. I think, coming here with 
amendments that cut the amount of this bill, even if we can reduce it 
from 13.6 to 13 percent or down to something reasonable like the rate 
of inflation, 2 or 3 percent or 4 percent, then at least that puts it 
in the realm of what's reasonable. But this hypocrisy is just really 
frustrating me.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I was watching this debate on my television in the office. I am not 
sure whether I was watching C-SPAN or the Twilight Zone.
  When I hear some of our colleagues come to the floor and express 
their

[[Page 15520]]

concern over earmarks, my question is, what is so important? I will 
yield to anyone on the other side. What is so important about any 
specific earmark that you have that it has to be rushed to passage 
tonight, that it cannot stand the scrutiny of this body?
  If you can tell us what specific earmark you have requested that 
should not be studied, if my colleagues will remember, the problem was 
not that we studied earmarks; the problem is that they were bulldozed 
to passage without proper scrutiny, without proper vetting.
  Well, guess what, we are running an intervention here. We are going 
to save you from yourselves. We are not going to allow you to continue 
to bulldoze these earmarks.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, we are not going to allow them to continue 
to rush these earmarks to passage without the proper scrutiny and to 
make sure the American people never again have to read headlines of 
Members who are incarcerated because of abusive earmarks. We will not 
tolerate those abuses.
  So I would ask, I would yield time to the gentleman if will tell us 
specifically what earmarks he feels so passionate about that he has 
requested that should be passed tonight rather than being scrutinized 
by the professionals of the Appropriations Committee and debated.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to entertain this 
question. I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I would say this. We have no idea what the earmarks are in this bill, 
because they are not in the bill.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time. I will yield to the gentleman if he 
can publicize for us tonight what specific earmarks he has requested.
  Mr. McHENRY. You are asking the same question. We are asking because 
we don't see any earmarks in this bill because you intend to drop them 
in during a private meeting.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time.
  I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer this question. Does 
the gentleman know what earmarks he submitted to the committee?

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. McHENRY. Yes, none.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Does the gentleman from Nebraska know what earmarks he's 
submitted to the committee?
  Mr. TERRY. Yes. I did not submit any.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time. The gentleman has requested no 
earmarks in any appropriations bill on any appropriations bill? I'll 
yield to the gentleman. Ever.
  Mr. McHENRY. Yes, I have, and I publicized it at home. I publicize 
the ones I do ask.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York has the time.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I will reclaim my time. The gentleman who has railed 
about the evil of earmarks has just acknowledged that he has requested 
earmarks. I would ask the gentleman what earmarks has he requested that 
are so important that they should not be studied by the Appropriations 
Committee so that we avoid the abuses of the last Congress? I yield to 
the gentleman.
  Mr. McHENRY. I ask for full public scrutiny, not just a private 
meeting between party leaders in this body.
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. The gentleman still has 
not told us what earmark that he has requested is so vitally important 
that it should not be scrutinized.
  Mr. BACHUS. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer my 
question about what specific earmarks he has requested that are so 
important that they cannot be scrutinized. I will yield to the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has just declined to yield to the 
gentleman from Alabama. He has said he would yield to the gentleman 
from North Carolina.
  Mr. McHENRY. Has the gentleman yielded?
  Mr. ISRAEL. I am yielding to the gentleman if he can answer my 
question.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, his question is impossible to answer. 
Under the rules of this House that the Democrats have written, they do 
not publicize the earmarks requested by Members.
  Mr. ISRAEL. I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman to tell us, despite what he 
may, his interpretation of the rules, whether he knows what earmarks he 
has requested. He said he does know what earmarks he has requested.
  I then asked him, Mr. Chairman, to share that information and explain 
why these should not be studied to avoid the kinds of abuses and jail 
sentences that occurred in the past, Mr. Chairman.
  I will yield back to the gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) is 
recognized on the secondary amendment. Having not spoken on the 
secondary amendment, the gentlewoman is entitled to recognition for 5 
minutes.
  The gentlewoman yields to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BACHUS. I thank the Chairman, and let me attempt to answer the 
question.
  The question is really not whether the gentleman from North Carolina 
objects to an earmark. It's not whether the gentleman from New York is 
for an earmark.
  Really, this is the people's House, and it's really up to the people 
to make the final judgment on each and every one of these earmarks, and 
the people simply don't know what these earmarks are. This is the 
people's House, and we've been told there are earmarks in this bill, 
there will be earmarks added in conference. We're told that the 
professionals on the Appropriations Committee are reviewing these 
earmarks. They're making a determination. That's what it's about.
  I grew up in Birmingham, and there was a Scripps Howard newspaper in 
Birmingham, and it had a searchlight on the front page. I'm sure some 
of you had a Scripps Howard newspaper in your community, and that was 
the truth going out, the light.
  The gentleman from North Carolina says he doesn't know anything about 
these earmarks. I don't know anything about these earmarks. The 
gentleman from New York may know all about them. The chairman of the 
committee may know about them. But really, the truth is that who ought 
to know, and who has a right to know and a right to make that judgment 
in each and every case is the people we represent, the people of the 
United States. It's their money. It's not our money.
  And that's what's so wrong with this process tonight. We are arguing 
among ourselves that this Member doesn't have the right, or this Member 
knows more than this Member, when the truth is it's the American people 
that have the right to know. They have the right to disclosure. This is 
their House. This is their money. And they have the right to make 
decisions about each and every one of these earmarks that some of us 
know about and some of us don't know about.
  Now, I would say this. The American people don't know how many 
earmarks are in this bill or how many earmarks will be in this bill. 
We're going to be asked to pass, we represent, we each represent, 6-, 
700,000 citizens, and we're going to be asked tomorrow or the next day 
to vote on this bill, to vote ``yes'' or ``no.''
  We've already been told there will be earmarks added to the 
appropriation bill, but it won't be until all the bills are passed that 
they'll go to conference, and a few select Members, representing 
probably 10 percent of the American people, they will add the earmarks. 
The American people will not ever know what these earmarks are until 
they're passed into law.
  Now, you know, I will tell the gentleman from New York, I don't care 
if you tell me about the earmarks.


                      Announcement By the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. BACHUS. I care about the American people. They have a right to 
know. They have a right to disclosure.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page 15521]]

  Let me, once again, not that anyone on the other side of the aisle is 
interested in listening to facts, but let me, once again, cite what the 
facts are. We keep hearing this mythical, robotic claim from the other 
side of the aisle that somehow these earmarks are going to be dropped 
in in conference.
  Well, it is not our fault that you couldn't finish the budget last 
year and we had to finish your work. It is not our fault that you 
couldn't finish the work on the Iraqi bill for 2007, so we had to spend 
the last 3 months cleaning up your mess on that one.


                      Announcement By the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. OBEY. It is not our fault that we had to spend at least 60 days 
answering questions from the San Diego prosecutor about shenanigans 
that occurred on your side of the aisle in the last year. That occupied 
the staff for an incredible amount of time.


                      Announcement By the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. Members have listened very courteously all evening. 
Members will not interrupt and heckle, on either side, the speakers.
  The gentleman may proceed.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Has the Chairman not said----
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state a point of order. A point of 
order is not a question. Does the gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I have a point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. The gentleman who is currently possessing the 
time has violated the rules by addressing Members other than the Chair.
  The CHAIRMAN. Yes. The Chair has tried to remind Members on both 
sides of that. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I won't say, I won't direct it directly to 
them. I will simply direct it to you.
  It is not our fault that the San Diego attorney subpoenaed records 
from our committee relating to shenanigans that were conducted on the 
other side of the aisle in the previous Congress under Republican 
control.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I will not yield until I finish my statement. I would 
appreciate the same courtesy I've shown you.
  Now, let me point out, the process that they've invented is not one 
that we have requested. What we have said is that, because of the 
urgency of substance, we decided we were going to leave pork projects 
behind for the moment. And what we've decided instead was to focus on 
oversight and producing substantive bills.
  We've now also said that in order to assure that there is review of 
every project, that we are going to be filing, before the August 
recess, every single earmark that we expect to place in the 
appropriation bills. And Members will then have over 30 days to look at 
the process. They can complain about any earmark they want.
  We are going to ask that it be open, not hidden, behind-the-scenes 
telephone calls. We're going to ask that people file in writing if they 
have an objection. We're going to ask the sponsor of the amendment to 
then respond in writing so that we can make a decent judgment about 
those earmarks.
  Now, let me make another point. For people who are squawking about 
the fact that these earmarks aren't going to be in the bill originally, 
the Republicans did the same thing on the Labor-H bill in 1998, in 
1999, in 2002, in 2004, in 2005. They did not have any earmarks in the 
Labor-Health-Education bill until the bill was in conference. The only 
difference was those earmarks were never reviewed ahead of time. These 
will be. Those earmarks were never in public view. These will be.
  They also did the same thing in 2002 and 2003 when they couldn't even 
get a Labor-H bill through the House, and so they went directly to 
conference in an omnibus.
  The difference between our process and the one they've been following 
is that there will be an opportunity ahead of time to know who has 
asked for these earmarks, and you'll be able to ask questions about it.
  And I would assume that the leadership of both parties would take a 
look at the project list for both parties so that they protect this 
institution from the outrageous scandals that we had because of their 
mismanagement when they were running the show.
  And I will stack my record on congressional reform against anybody on 
that side of the aisle any time. My entire career here has been defined 
by reform, and I don't intend to change it now.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I just suggest that our former speaker does know the 
rules. He does put his time in on the work here. But by pointing out 
the exceptions, he also points out the vast majority of the time that 
the projects we had in the bill were in the bill. They could have been 
debated.
  In the long process that the gentleman has now suggested we would go 
through, Mr. Chairman, the one thing that is not included in that 
process, where apparently people can file responses, they can do this, 
they can do that, they will not have the chance to debate on the House 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Blunt

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 190, 
noes 221, not voting 26, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 458]

                               AYES--190

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf

                               NOES--221

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow

[[Page 15522]]


     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--26

     Arcuri
     Bordallo
     Braley (IA)
     Clarke
     Clay
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Filner
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Lewis (GA)
     Norton
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining on the vote.

                              {time}  2234

  Messrs. DeFAZIO, SHULER, PALLONE, ALTMIRE and DOGGETT, Ms. WATSON and 
Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. KINGSTON, WALSH of New York and WICKER changed their vote 
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to the amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the second-degree amendment of the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) in regard to cutting 
something like $7.5 million out of this section of the bill.
  The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the 
subcommittee, spoke a little earlier in the evening and questioned the 
logic, you know, why that amount. Well, if you do the math and you look 
at that section, Mr. Chairman, that cut is about 7 percent. That amount 
reflects the same amount of overspending in this bill. The $2 billion 
is about 7 percent more than the President requested, and actually a 
14.5 to 15 percent overall increase. So I think that the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) is absolutely appropriate in asking for a 
reasonable, fiscally responsible cut in a $120 million spending 
category.
  Mr. Chairman, another North Carolinian was heard by me to say this 
morning, after the chairman of the Appropriations Committee had spoken 
and said what we are trying to do, what the Republican minority is 
trying to do is shut down the process. Mr. Chairman, what the gentleman 
from North Carolina, Mr. Robin Hayes, said was, we're not trying to 
shut down the process, we are trying to clean up the process.
  Just a few minutes ago, before the last motion, the distinguished 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, and I paraphrase, it is 
not our fault that the former majority couldn't get their work done in 
the previous Congress. Well, I would say to him, Mr. Chairman, it is 
not our fault that the new majority and the Appropriations Committee 
spent 3\1/2\ months debating an emergency supplemental for funding of 
our troops with benchmarks and timelines, Mr. Chairman, that would call 
for the withdrawal of our troops at a date certain, no matter what the 
situation was. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, there were a number of amendments 
in that process to bring the troops home immediately and not to give 
victory a chance. And, Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that they 
refused to listen, this new majority, and insisted on milking this 
process for every ounce of political fodder that they could get out of 
it, knowing full well that in the final analysis they had a losing 
proposition. And they did lose that debate before we went home for the 
Memorial Day recess. So, that is not our fault.
  So, Mr. Chairman, if the chairman of the Appropriations Committee 
says, you know, we weren't able to put these earmarks in the 
appropriations bill under the sunshine and the light of day, as always 
has been done, because we ran out of time. And, Mr. Chairman, I have 
heard it said that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee feels 
very strongly that he wants to get all these bills done before the 4th 
of July recess to do just as good a job as our distinguished former 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee Mr. Lewis did last year and 
the year before that in the 109th Congress.
  Mr. Chairman, it is not our fault that the new majority wasted 3\1/2\ 
months and were not able to get these earmarks together in time to put 
in these bills like they should have done. That's not our fault.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time had expired, at which point the 
Chair recognized the gentlewoman from California.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have a privileged motion at the desk.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair had recognized previously the gentlewoman 
from California.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. Members will suspend.
  The gentleman from Georgia's time had expired. The Chair announced 
that his time had expired and recognized the gentlewoman from 
California.
  Mr. GINGREY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentlewoman from California 
rise?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the 
last word.
  The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Georgia rise?


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Gingrey

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

[[Page 15523]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 218, not voting 30, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 459]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--30

     Becerra
     Berkley
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Christensen
     Clay
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English (PA)
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kilpatrick
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller (NC)
     Norton
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Radanovich
     Sessions
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 1 minute remains 
in this vote.

                              {time}  2259

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota and Mr. CUELLAR changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2300

  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the 
last word.
  Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work on this bill. As you know, I 
chair the Border, Maritime and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee of 
the Homeland Security Committee, and I have been working on port 
security issues for many years, and I was extensively involved in the 
SAFE Port Act that was signed into law last year.
  One important provision of the SAFE Port Act was the requirement that 
the Coast Guard implement a long-range vessel tracking system. More 
than 60,000 vessels traverse the world's oceans annually, and more than 
8,000 deep-draft vessels call on United States ports every year.
  Implementation of a long-range vessel tracking system is critical to 
ensure that maritime operations are conducted in a way that keeps our 
Nation safe and secure. In addition, it will make international 
commerce more efficient for our Nation's port operators.
  Chairman Price, while your bill does not allocate a specific amount 
of funding for the implementation of the required long-range vessel 
tracking system, I have noted that there is a funding stream of $40 
million for activities mandated by the SAFE Port law, and I want to 
clarify your support for the implementation of the long-range vessel 
tracking system required in the SAFE Port law and that part of the $40 
million in funding could be used towards meeting that mandate.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. I yield to the gentleman from 
North Carolina.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. I thank the gentlewoman for her inquiry 
and for her leadership on the Homeland Security authorizing committee.
  As you stated, the SAFE Port Act established many new requirements 
related to port security. I agree that the implementation of a long-
range vessel tracking system should be a priority, and that part of the 
$40 million in additional funding could be used to meet the long-range 
vessel tracking system mandated in the SAFE Port Act.
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that 
clarification and for your strong support for improving port security 
and the security of our country.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have a question I think the American people would 
like answered. It is a question that has not been asked tonight. We 
know Chairman Obey, and we know he has taken a position that he is not 
going to publish or disclose these earmarks. He has expressed his 
opinion.
  What we don't know, Mr. Chairman, is, the Speaker is not sitting in 
the Chair and we don't know where the Speaker stands on this whole 
procedure. We do know that the majority leader said that all earmarks 
would be published, there would be complete transparency. We know that 
he said in committee they would be debated. We know that the Speaker on 
a number of occasions, I think we have all seen

[[Page 15524]]

those quotes, we have heard a few tonight, the Speaker make it clear 
during the campaign and after the campaign that all earmarks would be 
disclosed prior to any vote on the House floor.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent on the Speaker to come 
before this body and address the body and tell the body whether or not 
the procedure that we are witnessing, whether it is chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee has taken this on himself, whether he is doing 
it on his own accord, whether he has polled the Democrat Members to see 
where they stand.
  But more important, we want to know where the Speaker stands. We want 
to know whether the Speaker consulted with the chairman, whether she 
has blessed this. We know what she said in USA Today. We know what she 
said in the Christian Science Monitor and what she said in a news 
conference just last month. We know that in a press conference on March 
13, 2007, she specifically said that all earmarks would be made public 
before a vote on the House floor. We know that, so it is a mystery to 
us why we are going through this process.
  Now, the chairman of the full committee said back in 1999 there was a 
bill, one bill, that the Republican majority did not publish the 
earmarks before the vote on the floor. We know that is part of his 
reason for doing this. But we also know that the Speaker of the House 
told the American people that this would never happen as long as she 
was Speaker. And she, as a late as a month ago, said there would be no 
votes on the House floor on an appropriations bill where earmarks were 
not published.
  In fact, the gentleman from Illinois, the majority whip, says, if 
possible, we are going to put them on the Internet weeks before we vote 
on them on the House floor. They are not on the Internet. We don't know 
how many earmarks there will be, what earmarks are under consideration, 
the total amount of those earmarks.
  But more importantly, we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman, we know 
that the Speaker of this House, the Speaker of this House said that 
this wouldn't happen. She said it many times on many occasions, both 
during the campaign when she asked the American people to turn the 
Republicans out and put the Democrats in.
  And we know that from exit polls that many people went to the polls 
on election day with that promise in mind; and they voted for Democrats 
who now serve in this body under the assurance that this wouldn't 
happen, and it is happening.
  Now, we know that the chairman of the full committee, we know his 
position. He said we just have to do. He talks about what we have done 
and what they have done. The important thing is the American people.
  In fact, earlier tonight on one of the news network, it was not Fox, 
they asked: Where does Speaker Pelosi stand on this? The American 
people are asking, where does the leadership of the majority stand on 
this issue?
  That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that before we proceed 
in this body, that the Speaker of this House come before this body and 
not tell, I don't care if she tells Republicans, I don't care if she 
further explains to Democrats, I want her to tell the American people 
why, only 3 weeks after promising that earmarks would be fully 
disclosed both in committee and on the floor of this House, that we 
backed away from this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Bachus

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 220, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 460]

                               AYES--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--220

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

[[Page 15525]]



                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Gohmert
       

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English (PA)
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Jones (OH)
     Kilpatrick
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norton
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Stark
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2327

  Mr. GOHMERT changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``present.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. McHENRY. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chairman, under House rules, only a Member can speak 
one time on each amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has spoken on the secondary amendment. He 
has, however, not spoken on the primary amendment, which is still 
pending.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McHENRY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may state it.
  Mr. McHENRY. The secondary amendment is before us here now. That is 
the operational motion.
  The CHAIRMAN. That is correct.
  Mr. McHENRY. And so, therefore, since he has already spoken on the 
secondary amendment, he may not speak a second time on the secondary 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The underlying amendment remains subject to debate, and 
the gentleman is entitled to speak on the underlying amendment.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to both the underlying amendment 
and the substitute amendment, and let me tell you why. I think it's 
important to put that amendment in context.
  We had crocodile tears expressed here about the number of earmarks 
and what will happen to earmarks. Let me cite the record.
  In 1994, the last year when Democrats controlled the House, earmarks 
were primarily concentrated in four appropriation bills. They were 
project-oriented bills like military construction, energy and water, 
Interior and general government. This Homeland Security bill had not 
even come to pass yet because it was before 9/11.
  In the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill the last year that 
the Democrats controlled, we had zero earmarks. The last year under 
Republican control that we had earmarks in the Labor-H bill, we had 
over 3,000.
  In the Transportation bill, the authorizing bill, from 1956 through 
1995, we had 20 separate highway bills pass this House containing a 
total of 739 earmarks. Do you know how many we had, Mr. Chairman, in 
2005 under Republican control in just one bill? Five thousand.

                              {time}  2330

  Then we all remember the infamous 3-hour vote on Medicare part D.
  I would ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle to keep this 
civil. If the other side wants to turn it into a circus, fine, but I 
think we ought to behave.
  Let me say, we remember Medicare part D when the Republican 
leadership kept the vote open for 3 hours. Meanwhile, the newspaper 
stories told of how they promised earmarks in the transportation bill 
in return for votes on Medicare part D.
  Last year, we had three major scandals. We had the Cunningham affair, 
then we had the bridge-to-nowhere, which caused a lot of heartburn 
around the country; and now, just recently, we have another story 
suggesting that the committee chairman then, the gentleman from Alaska, 
inserted a project for Florida.
  Under Republican rules, as they existed then, nobody knew about any 
of that until about 2 years after the fact. Under the proposal that we 
are proposing for earmarks, you would know about that 30 days before 
they went into effect. That is a huge difference.
  Let me also point out, in 1994, the four biggest appropriation bills 
that's Commerce-Justice, Labor, Transportation and VA-HUD. The last 
year the Democrats controlled the House, in 1994, the four major 
appropriations bills, Commerce-Justice, Labor-Health, Transportation 
and VA, we had a total of 764 earmarks. Those same bills, just one 
fiscal year ago, had 8,600 earmarks.
  With all due respect, I don't want to hear any crocodile tears on the 
other side of the aisle with respect to the issue of earmarks. They 
have exploded under their operation of this House, not under ours.
  In terms of what's going on tonight, I should make quite clear that 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) told me in January that the 
minority party would give us no procedural cooperation because they 
didn't like the way we had handled a continuing resolution. They wanted 
us to have a straight CR rather than thinking our way through 
priorities. Now they have simply moved on to another excuse.
  So I would simply say, whether you vote for the underlying amendment 
or for the amendment to the amendment, these are not real amendments. 
It is clear to me that they have only one purpose, to bring this House 
to a halt, and they are looking for any excuse they can find.
  They got a mighty weak one, but we are going to stay here until the 
job is done. This is the people's business. We are not going to be 
diverted by their trying to play Trivial Pursuit on this bill.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I have voted every time to continue our process against my 
leadership. I was not going to say anything, but when you referred to 
the bridge-to-nowhere as a scandal, when you voted for it four times, 
most of the people in this room voted for it four times. It was always 
transparent. I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, 
always have, as long as they are exposed.
  But don't you ever call that a scandal.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. That's hard to do.
  I would suggest respectfully, again, let's keep our facts straight. 
Every one of you in this room, maybe, six or eight people, never voted 
for the bill that you are talking about. But you voted for it four 
times.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. It was transparent, as it should be tonight.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  It seems to me we are in some danger of forgetting what we are here 
about. We are here about the second-degree amendment of the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry). I rise in strong support of that 
amendment because it would restrain the excessive spending in this 
bill.
  But it's more important that we talk about what we are really here 
about. What we are really here about is the people's business. What we 
are really here about is how we spend their money.
  What brings us here tonight, in the middle of the night, is that the 
majority has proposed a procedure for handling earmarks which is 
inconsistent with what you told the American people. It is 
indefensible, and it cannot stand. You can recognize that. You can 
accept that fact tonight and change that procedure; you can accept that 
fact tomorrow.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will direct his remarks to the Chair.

[[Page 15526]]


  Mr. SHADEGG. You can accept those facts tonight and change the 
procedure. The majority can accept that fact tomorrow and change the 
procedure. The majority can accept that fact next week and change the 
procedure, but the procedure will change.
  I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I 
understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand 
that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks 
were handled in the past.
  But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people 
now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American 
people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they 
cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks 
and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated.
  There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense. 
The American people understand that some people in this body believe 
earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks 
can be very bad and very corrupt.
  They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know 
what's in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated 
on this floor.
  Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the 
Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can 
post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this 
process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills, 
critical language to bill language that the American people don't get 
to see or know about after debate has occurred.
  We didn't tell the American people that we would make the process 
open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every 
earmark to be debated, because we don't run the place.
  You run the place. You're in the majority.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend. Members will remember to 
address their remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. SHADEGG. The majority party told America that these earmarks 
would be openly revealed, and that means they have to be debated.
  It doesn't matter. You can relent now, or you can go on and defend 
this practice through the press tomorrow and tell them that you want 
secrecy. You do not want a Member over here to be able to debate an 
individual earmark. You do not want that earmark revealed to the public 
today.
  You do not want that earmark revealed to the public today. You want 
to put its being revealed off to some point later, when no Member can 
raise it or object to it, but the American people get it. The history 
lesson is nothing more than a history lesson.
  Earmarks in this body must now be disclosed because the Speaker said 
she would disclose them. That's all we are asking for. We are asking 
that they be disclosed so the American people can see them, so that our 
constituents can see them, and so on this floor we can debate them and 
discuss them. The good ones will pass, and the ones that are corrupt or 
inappropriate will fail.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Shadegg

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 216, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 461]

                               AYES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Buyer
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Doyle
     Edwards
     English (PA)
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez

[[Page 15527]]


     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Myrick
     Norton
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that there is 1 
minute remaining in the vote.

                              {time}  2356

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. And I yield 
the balance of my time to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. 
Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, there's been a lot said tonight by the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee about how the numbers of 
earmarks have gone up over the years, or went up over the years that 
Republicans were in charge. But nary a word has been said about the 
fact that the Democrats were getting a large proportion of those 
earmarks. So I think we ought to talk a little bit about the fact that 
Democrats were getting some of those evil earmarks that they campaigned 
so hard against last year.
  For example, actually, in 1996, the first year that Republicans were 
in charge and did the budget, the number of earmarks actually went 
down. The last year that the Democrats did their budget, the earmarks 
were 1,439. The first year that Republicans were in charge, the 
earmarks went down to 958. Of the 958, the Democrats had 40 percent, 
383.
  Now, it is true that the number of earmarks went up over the years. 
In 1997 they went to 1,596. Democrats had 638 of those earmarks.
  In 2005 the number did go up to 13,996, and Democrats had 5,599 of 
those. So if they were so evil in those days, it's hard to understand 
how you could have been claiming such a large proportion of them.
  Obviously you all missed the point in the debate about these 
earmarks. Many Republicans believe in earmarks. We think that it is the 
right of the Congress to appropriate money to certain projects. That's 
not the issue.
  The issue is you campaigned on transparency and changing the system.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the Democrats campaigned on transparency, and 
I will give you a quote again from Speaker of the House. ``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.''
  Majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system 
of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of 
the night.'' And I think we're in the dark of the night right now.
  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.
  Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, 
the bill we're debating tonight: ``This bill mandates that all grant 
and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive 
processes, except when other funding distribution mechanisms are 
required by statute.''

                              {time}  0000

  ``This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that 
there are no congressional or administration earmarks in the bill.''
  Again, we don't know what is here.
  The Rules Committee chairwoman: ``Our rules package requires full 
disclosure of earmarks in all bills and conference reports before 
Members are asked to vote on them,'' House floor remarks, January 4, 
2007.
  Folks, there is some hypocrisy going on here, and that is what we are 
calling you on. You promised a different process.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will direct her remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, the majority party promised a new process. We 
are not getting that new process.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman may not offer that motion on another 
Member's time.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. 
Chairman, it is----
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will suspend.
  The gentlewoman from Oklahoma did not complete her 5 minutes and no 
one yielded back. The Chair then recognized the gentleman from New 
York.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. A precedent motion was offered after the 
gentleman moved to strike the last word. The motion was that the 
Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman had been recognized. The motion is 
renewable, but the motion cannot interrupt someone who has been 
recognized.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is that this woman is 
the one who had the time. She did not yield it back. It was not 
appropriate to go to someone else until she had yielded back her time. 
That is the point of order.
  The CHAIRMAN. No one had made a motion who was able to make a motion.
  The Chair will not try to explain the rules in the midst of an 
uproar.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, this point of order did not ask for an 
explanation. It asked that the rules be followed, not explained.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is following the rules.
  The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, it is gratifying to hear so many of my 
colleagues express their understanding of what happened in the campaign 
of 2006 and why a majority party on that side turned into a minority 
party. They are right. Some of it was because of the abject abuse of 
the earmark process. Some of it was about the abject abuse that 
resulted in people being indicted and people going to jail.
  But that was only part of it. We on this side of the aisle got that 
message. That is why we have a transparent process that is going to 
open up all the earmarks to scrutiny. But that was only part of it.
  The fact that some commentators have referred to the previous 
leadership of the party of this House as the most ethically bankrupt in 
our Nation's history, that was only part of the reason that the 
American people rejected the Republican mission.
  They also rejected it because they ran up the largest deficits in 
recent memory. They rejected the Republican rule because there was a 
war that was being prosecuted without any oversight on that side of the 
aisle. The fact that wages were stagnant and the minimum wage hadn't 
been raised; that it was more and more difficult for the middle class 
and those struggling to get into the middle class to send their kids to 
college.
  Well, on the Democratic side, we said we are going to work late into 
the night past the dilatory efforts of our colleagues because we are 
here to fight for the American people.
  You say, one way or another you are going to get your way by doing 
motion after motion after motion.
  I have got to tell you something. It is worth it. It is worth it. 
This fight is important enough that we are prepared to stand here and 
try to get a Homeland Security bill to protect the American people. We 
are prepared to do it. We are prepared to stay here all night for a 
transparent process that allows us to assess some of these thousands of

[[Page 15528]]

earmarks submitted by both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. Chairman, do you know how I know with certitude that we are going 
to pass this bill to protect the American people by having a Homeland 
Security bill that is sound? Because we said we were going to make it 
easier for parents to send their kids to college, and we did it. We 
said we were going to raise the minimum wage, and we did it. We said we 
were going to crack down on these oil companies getting tax breaks for 
doing nothing more than gouging the American people, and we did it. We 
have done the things the American people have sent us here to do.
  The only way that my colleagues on the other side can think from 
stopping us to achieve the agenda of the American people is every 
couple of minutes saying, We want to go home. We have worked hard 
enough. We want to rise.
  We are not going anywhere. You can do it again and again and again. 
And we will wait you out.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, tell them this. We will wait. We will wait 
because this is too important, if you want to trivialize the process.
  I don't blame you for not wanting to debate this bill because the 
leadership of the previous Congress was shameful. There was no 
oversight. There was no questioning. There was no sense of what the 
responsibility is of this Congress. And your vision, or absence 
thereof, was rejected by the American people.
  Now, my colleagues on the other side, the colleagues that my back is 
facing, are destined to be in the permanent minority because the 
American people want us to achieve things. We are committed on this 
side of the aisle to doing it. And if you think that you have problems 
with this bill, make an amendment to it. Make 10 amendments. Make 30 
amendments.
  We are going to be here because we believe in something else: Having 
an open rule to allow you to do this.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, we think that more and more it is becoming 
clear that we have a good portion of this institution that wants to 
solve these problems in a bipartisan way if we can, and as Democrats 
alone if we must. But one way or another, if you think, as one of the 
previous speakers said, ``You are going to do it our way or we are 
going to keep making motions to rise,'' keep doing it. We are not going 
anywhere. We are here to fight for the American people for 2 years, and 
we are not giving up.
  There are people making much bigger sacrifices than we are. What we 
are here to do is to try to honor their sacrifice, honor the things the 
American people are going through. And that is why the American people 
turned to a Democratic House; a Democratic Senate; and in a matter of 
months, a Democratic President of the United States.
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Granted, I cannot bring you the histrionics and gesticulations 
because I am not from a big city like New York. I'm just a simple 
country lawyer from Detroit.
  But I am reminded of a phrase that Ralph Waldo Emerson used in one of 
Robert Kennedy's favorite poems. It's called ``Fame.'' And he used the 
phrase ``Being for Seeming bravely barter.'' And that is what this has 
become an exercise in.
  The reason that we are here is not because we want to rush this bill. 
I think you would be quite pleased if we were in a hurry to leave. I 
think, Mr. Chairman, that the majority would be very happy with us if 
we were willing simply to take whatever was offered and move on, as 
much of what happened during the first grand and glorious 6,000 minutes 
where if they had the votes, the minority services were not required.
  The reason that we are here today is so that we can seem to be doing 
our work. If you pass an appropriation bill, your constituents are 
going to come back to you and say, Okay, tiger, what was in the 
appropriation bill? And we will then say, What? Well, I don't really 
know, but I did my work.
  It is akin to being on an operating table where the doctor opens you 
up and knows he has to put something inside of you, and then shoves you 
off to outpatient therapy saying, Well, don't worry. We will figure 
that out later and don't think about it because we still haven't 
decided what is going to go back in you.
  We are trying to bring transparency to a system that does not have it 
because it wants to put perception over policy. That is what we are 
fighting for. It is not our way. It is the American way. We are trying 
to make sure that we do our work in the sunlight, not in the dark of 
night, so that America knows we are appropriators, not vampires.
  As a country lawyer from Detroit, I am reminded that this 
appropriation process is much like closing the barn door after the 
horse has left, and when you watch that fine steed leave, you know the 
rear view is not all that it is cracked up to be.
  We have learned a painful lesson as a former majority. We did not 
realize, I think, the historic opportunity we had to lead this Nation 
to transformational times, but at least we tried to be honest about the 
process, certainly more honest than the new majority has portrayed 
themselves to the American people.
  Mr. Chairman, ``Those who do not learn the lessons of history are 
condemned to repeat them.'' I sincerely hope so, because you are 
repeating so many of the mistakes we made, I can hardly get to sleep at 
night, I am so happy to see it. Except for one thing: The American 
people deserve better. Give them the process that allows them to weigh 
their determinations that we make here in a fair, full, and honest 
manner. Give them the government they need so that you do not become an 
empty majority as this new minority once was.
  And I wish to close with this. Prove me wrong. Because as of today, 
as of tonight, I know two things: My party stalled moving America 
forward, but right now you have stalled moving America backward.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. McCotter

  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 188, 
noes 216, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 462]

                               AYES--188

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)

[[Page 15529]]


     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--216

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stark
     Van Hollen
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes remain 
in this vote.

                              {time}  0030

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to address this distinguished House and yield to 
the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who has done a 
terrific job tonight in hoping to bring comity and understanding to 
this great, august body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like, if I could, in a calm 
atmosphere to simply walk Members of the House through some of the 
facts so that they understand exactly what it takes for the staff to 
prepare earmarks for consideration by the Congress.
  Yesterday, we were told in the Appropriations Committee by our 
Republican friends, at least by some of them, they would ask me, what 
is the hurry? Why can't you slow down these bills until you can attach 
the earmarks? Today, our colleague from Georgia, Mr. Price, said on the 
floor, these bills are already 1 month late, implying that the 
Republicans last year were able to move the bills to the floor faster.
  That is right. They did.
  I want Members to understand why if we started tonight it would take 
a good 3 to 4 weeks to prepare all of the earmarks that Members are 
requesting. Let me explain why.
  Our staff doesn't just have to wade through these requests. Some of 
these requests that we receive propose to place earmarks on programs 
such as the National Institutes of Health, for instance, which have 
never before been earmarked, earmarks which the Members on both side of 
the aisle strongly oppose. So we have to work with those Members to 
reshape those earmarks.
  Some requests come in, but they are duplicative. You may have four or 
five Members propose the same earmark, but they describe it 
differently, and the staff has to wade through and reconcile them so 
they understand it is really the same item.
  Some earmarks that are requested fail to make clear which programs 
the requested funds are supposed to come from, so we have to plug in 
with Members to get answers to that.
  Some requests ask that funds that are earmarked within a specific 
program be used for purposes which are not authorized by the underlying 
authorization, so again we have to go back to those Members and review 
those projects and rework them so that they are eligible.
  That is why it is an immense job for the staff to review, especially 
when we have 32,000 requests.
  There is another reason why we have lagged on earmarks, and that is 
because we chose to do substance over worrying about pork. What we did, 
after almost 5 years of virtually no oversight by this Congress, we 
chose to intensify oversight and devote our staff time and Member time 
to that, rather than people's boodle. As a result, we held 224 
hearings, as opposed to 117 last year under the Republican regime.
  That is why we have come to the House with the proposition to make 
certain that we do have transparency, that we will have names attached 
to every earmark whenever they appear in the process, and we are 
following a process which has been engaged in by the majority party on 
the major domestic appropriation bills of each year, and the majority 
party engaged in this same process for 7 out of the last 12 years. The 
only difference is, they didn't provide 30 days' notice before those 
bills went to conference with those earmarks, and our process would.
  I know it is late in the evening and I know that Members like to 
score partisan points, but the fact is, Members, especially those who 
are not on the Appropriations Committee, are owed the courtesy of at 
least understanding what it is that the staff has to go through in 
order to prepare earmarks for everybody.
  Now, I don't have a Republican list of earmarks.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Boehner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. Chairman, let me simply say, I don't have any idea what earmarks 
our Republican friends would want to see included in, for instance, the 
Labor-Health-Education bill.
  But the fact is, there is one other protection that we want to have 
in our process: Unlike the past, when some Appropriation subcommittees 
simply said Democrats, you look at yours, Republicans look at yours, 
and then do whatever you want, what we are going to try to do is to 
make certain that you get to see ours and we get to see yours so that 
we have that safety valve built into the system. That will protect

[[Page 15530]]

the taxpayer and that will protect the reputation of this institution, 
and I think Members know it.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge Members to remember that our job tonight, 
after all, is to try to pass a Homeland Security bill, which has 
traditionally been virtually without earmarks.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time and I thank the 
gentleman for his courtesy.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues probably are wondering why at 20 
minutes to 1 we are still in the House Chamber debating this issue. I 
think all of us understand that there is a difference over the amount 
of money being appropriated in this bill and what is being allocated to 
all of the appropriation bills.
  If we go back and review the bidding on the spending levels over the 
course of this year, we spent an additional $6 billion in the CR back 
in February. We spent an additional $17 billion over and above the 
President's request for the supplemental spending bill for Iraq, 
Katrina, and a whole host of other issues that many Members did not 
support.
  When we look at the appropriation bills for the fiscal year 2008 
beginning in October, we see that we are going to spend an additional 
$20 billion. So if you add those numbers up, you can see that we are 
spending tens of billions of dollars, well above what the President 
requested for not only this current fiscal year, but the next fiscal 
year.
  If that isn't bad enough, let's also remember that this Congress in 
this first 5 months has already authorized some $105 billion of new 
spending in their proposals that have been brought to this floor and 
passed. So for many of us, at some point we have to say, enough is 
enough when it comes to spending.
  The second issue involves the transparency and accountability with 
regard to earmarks. Last year I went through hell and high water to put 
into effect an earmark reform proposal that dealt with appropriation 
bills, that dealt with authorization bills and dealt with tax bills. It 
required full disclosure, it required names to be attached, and it 
allowed Members of this House, both on the floor of this House with an 
appropriation bill or authorization bill or tax bill, or a conference 
report with regard to an appropriation bill, tax bill or authorization 
bill, to move under a point of order or to strike that amount of money.
  There are 435 of us in this Chamber who are well-equipped to deal 
with bringing the accountability into this process that all of us want. 
The Democrat majority in January, when they adopted their rules, gutted 
the earmark reform proposal that we put into effect last year, while at 
the same time saying that they were making it stronger.
  The fact is, Members do not have access to these earmarks in these 
bills. We have all heard the stories tonight about what the chairman 
expects to do after we pass the appropriation bills, with these slush 
funds included in them, secret slush funds, which will later be 
allocated based on the decision of one person, one of the 535 of us. It 
is not right, and the gentleman from Wisconsin knows it is not right.
  Now, the gentleman from Wisconsin says we haven't had time to do 
this. I can tell the gentleman from Wisconsin over the last 3\1/2\ 
months we have, as he has often said, posed for holy pictures over the 
fight over funding our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the 
world. We had plenty of time to look at those earmarks, but we didn't 
do it because we were busy posing for holy pictures.
  I can tell the gentleman that to bring a bill forward with no 
earmarks in it with a promise that we will all see them later is not 
good enough. I think the Members on our side of the aisle want real 
disclosure, want real transparency, and I think what the American 
people want most is real accountability.
  Now, let me get to the last issue. For 6 years the gentleman from 
Wisconsin had the 10 o'clock rule. When we were doing appropriation 
bills, the majority on our side was not allowed to work after 10 
o'clock.
  Now, I happen to agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin, because I 
think working after 10 o'clock is not in the best interests of our 
Nation. For the nine out of 10 times that we have tried to work after 
10 o'clock at night, my colleague from Wisconsin refused to operate 
after 10 o'clock and threatened all of us that if we worked after 10 
o'clock, we would have all of these procedural motions, motions to 
rise, and we would not be here.
  Now, I told the gentleman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin. 
I go to bed at 10 o'clock. I don't think good work happens after 10 
o'clock at night. So what I told the majority earlier today is that we 
weren't going to work after 10 o'clock at night because we were going 
to impose the Obey rule on the institution.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHNER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Let me point out there is one critical difference between last year 
and tonight: Last year, you agreed that we would shut down at 10 
o'clock because we agreed to put time limits on all of the amendments 
so we could finish the bills.
  I cooperated procedurally so that you could move every single bill 
through the House, even though I disagreed with some of them.
  The key was that we each got something. You got to finish the bills, 
and we agreed that because we were setting time limits on amendments, 
that, therefore, there would be no need to work in the evening. You 
haven't been willing to agree to time limits.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, Mr. Obey, I will say 
this: I will be happy to abide by the 10 o'clock rule if you will give 
real transparency and real accountability to the American people on 
earmark reform.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                 Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Boehner

  Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 213, not voting 37, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 463]

                               AYES--187

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)

[[Page 15531]]


     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--213

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--37

     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Capuano
     Carson
     Carter
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hunter
     Lantos
     Lowey
     Murphy, Patrick
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Schakowsky
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Taylor
     Towns
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                  Announcement by the Acting Chairman

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Larson of Connecticut) (during the vote). 
Members are advised there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  0100

  Mrs. MALONEY of New York changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The minority leader brought up two essential points which were 
basically, at that point, why we were here at a quarter to 1 in the 
morning. The first point dealt with the issues of fiscal responsibility 
and spending, and the second issue dealt with earmarks and the 
procedure or transparency and the questions that the minority had.
  On the first issue of fiscal responsibility, he said that they were 
tired of the amount of spending that was going on and how basically 
flagrant spending had happened under Democrats.
  After 6 years and $4 trillion of new debt run by a Republican 
President and Republican Congress and Republican Senate, I do 
appreciate your conversion on the road to Damascus as it relates to 
fiscal responsibility and spending. And I do believe that after we've 
seen the highest increase in the Nation's debt in the shortest period 
of time under a Republican Congress and a Republican President, adding 
$4 trillion to the Nation's debt, that you have decided enough is 
enough when it comes to a piece of legislation on homeland security, 5 
years after the strike on 9/11. I think it's ironic that it's on this 
bill that you have decided the spending issue you want to debate.
  Now, the minority leader did offer, and he has said as recently as a 
couple weeks ago, when we have certain debates on the war in Iraq, 
protecting America, to always be conscious that people from around the 
world are watching this debate. So I do believe as it relates to 
homeland security, as we try to protect our borders, as we try to 
protect our ports, and as we try to protect our cargo, I'm sure the 
terrorists around the world are quaking in their boots on the motions 
to rise. You've given them nothing but fear as that issue emerges. That 
is your right.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, and since it's often noted on the politics 
of what has happened in the last election, which is the issue of 
earmarks, as it relates to the motion to rise, you are long on process 
and short on policy.
  What does this bill actually do? And it's ironic that it's the 
Republican Congress that basically has enacted, for lack of a better 
term, a filibuster in name that prevents us from considering 3,000 new 
border agents.
  It's ironic that it is the Republicans in the minority who have dealt 
with, for the first time we're dealing with adding funding for nuclear 
material detection, you're preventing that to be voted on.
  It's the Republican minority who is dealing with, as it relates to 
our port security, adding 100 percent new equipment and radiation 
detection to deal with radiation coming into the port which we know 
from all the intelligence is an attempt by those who are trying to hurt 
and harm America, and there's also an increase in our cargo protection.
  We've increased funding for our police and fire equipment and fire 
departments; grants to study and make sure urban areas know how to deal 
with an emergency; transit grants in case terrorists try to strike our 
areas in major urban areas; fire grants; communications equipment for 
police and firefighters; port security funding; explosive detection 
system; air cargo explosive screening; customs and border agents, 
adding, as I said, 3,000 new agents for the border, 250 additional 
customs agents; law enforcement efforts for customs officers; fence 
requirements all for our border, all this to make sure that our 
borders, our cargo system, and our ports are secured.
  Anytime you want to have that discussion, as long as you want to have 
that discussion, we are ready to have that discussion of what it takes 
to secure America, but after 5 years of the strike on America, I find 
it somewhat poetic that this would be the bill that on procedural 
grounds you would decide to bring the Congress to a halt.
  And I do appreciate since there are no earmarks in this legislation, 
you seem to be making an argument about earmarks on this issue that 
fully funds our efforts to secure America.
  To the minority leader's second point on earmarks, the question is, 
and it's a legitimate question for us to debate, have we lived up to 
our rhetoric?
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. EMANUEL. I request an additional minute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois?
  Mr. McHENRY. I object.
  The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  With regard to the remarks just made, Mr. Chairman, I think what is 
happening here from the Republican side is not an objection to funds 
for national security; it's the secret funds for

[[Page 15532]]

Democratic security we're concerned about.
  So we've also heard discussion from the chairman of the committee 
about a circus. We heard the term ``circus'' numerous times, and that's 
what got my attention. It got me to thinking about a circus. Most of us 
have been to circuses. Let me tell you about a circus.
  A circus, it's not the most expensive circus, but it's one where you 
have some trained dogs, maybe they're yellow, maybe they're blue, but 
you have some trained dogs who get in a line and run in a circle, jump 
through hoops when the ringmaster tells them; they sit when the 
ringmaster tells them. These blue, yellow dogs, whatever color dogs, 
they stand on their hind legs and dance when the ringmaster tells them. 
They do what the ringmaster says, and it's against their instincts for 
their own security, it's against their instincts for their own well-
being and their family's well-being, but it's all to please the 
ringmaster. Now, that is a circus.
  Now, regarding earmarks, we did have earmark reform last year, and 
when I heard all of the promises from the other side about there was 
going to be even greater earmark reform, I thought, you know, that 
really could be a good thing. But the old saying around Washington is 
that no matter how cynical you get, it's never enough to catch up, and 
I'm beginning to see there's something to that because all those 
promises about taking our earmark reform and going much further went 
out the window.
  As the minority leader said, we had earmark reform. We went directly 
after the airdropped earmarks so there could be no airdropped earmarks 
that would not be out of the shadows. Out of the shadows, we're told 
illegal immigrants need to be brought out of the shadows; they're out 
on the street marching. The only thing that seems to be in the shadows 
is these secret earmarks, and that is what we're about.
  Now, it would have been a great improvement if we could have moved 
further, but the truth is there were dozens of us in the Republican 
side last year that went to our leadership and said, we're not voting 
for appropriations unless you give us some earmark reform, and what we 
got was reform on airdrop. I wasn't leader of that, but I was sure 
proud to be part of it. We had Mike Pence, Jeb Hensarling, we had Jeff 
Flake leading the charge on those things, and because a few dozen, and 
I tell this, Mr. Chairman, through the chairman and hope that people 
across the aisle, whatever color dogs they may present themselves to 
the public to be, will understand that a few dozen people talking to 
their leadership that they're not voting for a bill until there's some 
earmark reform gets the leadership's attention. We got it on this side, 
and the Democrats can get it on their side once they get on their own 
hind legs when they're not instructed by the ringmaster.
  Now, there is a cloud of corruption that has been over this body. We 
dealt with it early on when we thought there was going to be minimum 
wage reform, and then we found out there was a secret exception, and 
then some said that it actually benefited someone or a business in the 
Speaker's own district, and we never heard the Speaker address that.
  Some said, well, there's a problem in the carbon footprint we're 
creating. Then we find out, well, some are saying there's an 
excessively large jet, and these kinds of questions arose.
  We find that a Democrat's indicted, and only then, even though months 
and months ago we see an 80-page search warrant affidavit with all 
kinds of information, it's only after indictment that the majority 
moves forward.
  We also know that there's an investigation ongoing, and the question 
has been raised is it appropriate for someone under investigation by 
the Justice Department to actually control the Justice Department's 
budget. There are all these kinds of things.
  We have had a chairman of a committee who had an earmark question, 
and then it's never been a denial that he threatened somebody that 
raised an issue. Did we bring that earmark into the sunlight? No. We 
not only didn't bring it into the sunlight, the person that tried to do 
that was threatened. And when he brought up the threat and the 
violation of ethics rules, then that was tabled.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  I rise as a member of the Appropriations Committee subcommittee. I 
want to give you a little bit of background of how this whole thing 
started.
  Homeland Security was an agency created after 9/11, and as admitted 
by many Members on the other side of the aisle, the agency itself was 
the biggest bureaucracy created. As you remember, it just took 
employees from all different agencies, including Department of 
Agriculture, and put it into one agency called Homeland Security. And 
we created an appropriations committee and essentially just funded it 
with what it asked, without all the first instance.
  And I remember Mr. Rogers, who was the first chairman of that 
committee, bringing to the Appropriations Committee the bill last year 
and indicating this is a huge bureaucracy. It has almost 200,000 people 
in it, very hard to wrap your hands around it, just sort of hold your 
nose and vote for it. There were no earmarks in the bill, as there 
aren't any earmarks here tonight, and we adopted it.
  What happened with the new chairmanship with Mr. Price is that first 
thing he did was ask, we better look at what this is all about. 
Homeland security for what? Security, what are we fighting? So we 
invited in all these experts to sort of give us an overview of what is 
risk, what is fear, what should we be looking at, and it was very 
sensible.
  What they suggested is that you're talking about people that are 
going to respond to incidents, and in an incident like Katrina, an 
incident like a disaster, like a terrorist act, you're going to need to 
prepare responders, people in the Intelligence Community, people on the 
ground in local communities. And in essence what they said is that 
homeland security is really hometown security, and you need to have 
your towns prepared for this, and you need to do it on a risk 
management basis; just don't throw money at everything.
  And Chairman Price went on CODELs seeing what disasters were like, 
going to Katrina, going to New Orleans and later along the border, 
where we put a lot of money, and what we learned in the committee, 
ironically, was that the only terrorist that was ever apprehended or 
found evidence of was not on the border that we've all been looking at, 
which is the Mexican-U.S. border, but, in fact, on the Canadian border 
where we were doing very little, if anything, on homeland security. The 
committee found that very interesting and put a lot of money and assets 
and said let's start securing the northern border as well as the 
southern border.
  The chairman took a bipartisan CODEL along the whole border from 
Tucson to San Diego, every inch of it, flew it, saw all the assets we 
have. My God, you'd think that we had the entire war in Iraq being 
fought on the Mexican border. We have everything from aircraft of all 
kinds, helicopters, we have ATVs, we have dogs, we have horses, people 
on horseback. We are covering that border like you can't believe.

                              {time}  0115

  In San Diego, we even found a Border Patrol out on the boats in San 
Diego Harbor. It was everything. We saw fences, all kinds of fences, 
vehicle fences, human fences, and areas that it's just unbelievable, as 
far as the eye can see. This border is longer than the distance between 
Washington and San Francisco.
  What we found is that we had better do this thing wisely. Let's 
listen and let's use some smart risk management.
  It all comes down to this bill tonight. What this bill is all about 
is, this is the best Homeland Security bill this country has ever had. 
We are spending all this time just on procedural delays.
  It's ironic that you are going to be hoisted on your own petard, 
because this process that Mr. Obey and the leadership has put in the 
process requires each one of you, when you ask

[[Page 15533]]

for something that's called an earmark, some people call it pork, it's 
essentially that thing that you think is important. You have to 
disclose why you are asking for it.


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will address remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, we had to fill out forms that were never, 
never ever in the history of the U.S. Congress asked for more 
disclosure and everything.
  The committee rightfully has stated that this is not the bill to 
attack earmarks, because there haven't been earmarks in this bill. So 
if you want to continue to delay this, rather than getting to the point 
of adopting an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Homeland 
Security to do its job, then let's get on with it.
  I think this has been a night of ridiculous waste of time on 
something that is very, very important on a bill that is very 
important, the first appropriations bill we have had here, one that 
must pass if, indeed, we are going to have homeland, hometown security.
  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to take you back, because I know as you are 
sitting there today you have an independent recollection of what it was 
like to come here in your first term. Many of us in this Chamber came 
just in January, took the oath of office, and now what we find is that 
every week is a new week, all new process we are learning.
  So we come in, those of us who are not appropriators, we come into 
our conference, and we hear this is the appropriations week. Wow, sit 
down with our staff, staff gets us up to speed, and we hear about 
earmarks, heard about them a lot in the campaign, and start to get the 
staff briefing on what are the tools that we have in earmarks.
  I heard a lot about them. If you talked to people in Illinois' Sixth 
Congressional District tonight, and they are awake, and you asked them 
about earmarks, you would get their attention. They would focus. It was 
a symbol of an abuse of the process.
  So when you sit down as a freshman and your staff comes in, they say, 
Congressman, this is what you do. You can offer amendments. You can 
argue with these things. You can challenge them on the floor. As iron 
sharpens iron, so one makes another better.
  So that process, that winnowing process, is what this is all about. 
That's what every Member has the right to do, except now, because now 
what ends up happening is our staff tells us, oh, no, but there is this 
new process, Congressman.
  What you get to do is you get to write a letter. Oh, yes, you get to 
write a letter to the chairman of the committee; and the chairman of 
the committee is going to open up that letter, and he's going to make a 
decision about the merits of you, an independent elected Member of 
Congress. That is who you get to talk to.
  You don't get to argue on the House floor. You don't get to light up 
435 people. You don't get to talk to millions of people. You get to 
write one letter. That's where you get to go.
  You know, if you think about that, that's absurd. There are all kinds 
of great things in this bill. No doubt about it. My prior colleague 
from the State of Illinois articulated many good things in this bill. 
It's my hope that we can come together and drive towards those things.
  But to act as if the earmark process is insignificant is really 
patronizing. It's patting people on the head and saying, off with you, 
be lively, you get to write your letter to the chairman, and the 
chairman will make a declaration on whether it's a good idea or a bad 
idea.
  Well, one of our colleagues on the Internet recently said this. He 
said, to his constituents, he said, I will remain no one's Congressman 
but yours. Doesn't that sound great? I mean, that's great stuff, that's 
rich. You know, that is rich in the Chamber of Commerce meetings; 
that's rich in front of the Rotary groups; that's rich in front of the 
coffee groups. And you go door to door, I'm going to be your 
Congressman.
  But you know what? You end up ceding that responsibility. You end up 
ceding that opportunity to one person, and that's only if you are lucky 
enough that he reads your mail.
  Well, I say ``no'' to that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Roskam

  Mr. ROSKAM. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 189, 
noes 214, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 464]

                               AYES--189

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Christensen
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern

[[Page 15534]]


     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hunter
     Jones (NC)
     Lantos
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland

                              {time}  0138

  So the motion to rise was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, as a freshman, I find myself at somewhat of a 
disadvantage in terms of listening to people speak from both sides of 
the aisle talking about the history of this institution and the way 
that things have been done over the past several Congresses and over 
the past several years. And I find that to be somewhat of a 
disadvantage.
  But I also find it to be somewhat of an advantage. And I find it to 
be an advantage in that you get an ability to look at things from a 
different perspective, from a new perspective, from a perspective not 
jaded by how things were done in the past, but looking at it on how 
things should be done.
  And one of the things that I can't help but notice as a former 
district attorney, when I used to try cases and I would listen to 
opening statements, you can always get a sense of how good your own 
case was by listening to the opening statement of the other side. And 
when they talked about everything, when they talked about the facts, 
you knew they had a good case. But when they talked about everything 
but the facts, you knew they didn't have much of a case.
  That's what we hear happening tonight. We're not hearing anything 
about this bill. We're not hearing discussion of the facts. We're 
hearing everything but what this bill is about.
  Earlier this week we had, in Rules Committee, a very good debate on 
this bill. And one of the points that was brought up on this bill was 
an issue that I think was very important, and that was the requirement 
that this bill would have to require ICE to reach out to local 
institutions, whether it were State, local or Federal, where people 
were being held that could be deported, and that would be on a monthly 
basis, to make a determination whether or not those people should be 
deported.
  And Ranking Member Rogers raised a very good issue during that 
debate, and he and I had some discussion on it. And he said, well, I 
believe that what we should be doing is spending more of our priority 
on the people who are not incarcerated, and I think this bill spends 
too much time worrying about the people who are incarcerated. My 
response to which was, as a former DA, the last thing we want to do is 
let somebody who is right under our nose get away from us. We need to 
stay focused on the people that are incarcerated. They are right there. 
They are under our nose, and we need to stay focused on it.
  That's what this bill does. But the point, the real important point 
of that debate was, it was a substantive debate. It was a debate based 
on the issues. It was a debate based upon the content of the bill 
itself, not about everything else, not about what happened in the past, 
not about how things were done or what is going on. It was based upon 
the substance of the bill. And I think that's what this debate should 
be focused on.
  I think it is a good bill. I think this debate is a good debate when 
it stays focused on the substance of the bill. And that's what I 
believe, as a former DA, this bill is a good bill because it deals with 
important issues that make our communities safer places.
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from New 
York, and I do agree with him that it would be best, certainly, if the 
debate could center around the substance of the bill, the legislation.
  That's why we're here tonight; the fact that we will have 12 
appropriation bills coming up, and we can't focus on much of the 
substance of that legislation because it won't be included in that 
legislation. We'll have to wait. We'll have to write to the committee 
and ask for a request or request for a response back.
  You know, a lot of us receive letters from Boy Scouts who are writing 
for their Citizenship in the Nation merit badge. I'm wondering if we'll 
qualify for the same thing by writing to the committee.
  I think we're entitled to a little more than that as Members of 
Congress. I think we're entitled to actually debate this on the floor.
  The other gentleman from New York who talked a bit earlier said that 
we're standing with the American people. I would suggest, you may want 
to go in and log on and see how this is being debated in the 
blogosphere or in the newspapers tomorrow.
  Let me just read a bit of one editorial in tomorrow's Roll Call, for 
example, and see how they're playing it. Roll Call is not exactly a 
bastion of the right.
  It mentions here, it says, ``So, on Monday, he,'' meaning the 
chairman of the Appropriations Committee, ``announced a new policy: 
Earmarks will be fully disclosed prior to the August recess after House 
voting, but before House-Senate conference, and may be challenged by 
writing a letter to the Appropriations Committee. After considering 
defenses from their sponsors, the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee will decide whether to put earmarks into conference reports. 
There will still be no votes on the issue.''
  The chairman of the Appropriations Committee ``reiterated this system 
was necessitated by time constraints that made it impossible to vet 
32,000 earmark requests before upcoming votes on appropriations bills. 
Asked if he would revert to a policy of full and early disclosure next 
year, he said that he wanted to but couldn't rule out the possibility 
that specific circumstances would arise.''
  This is what they say. ``This simply isn't good enough. The chairman 
of the Appropriations Committee should not only be disclosing all 
earmarks before House voting, but all earmarked requests. Earmarks 
should be open to public vetting, full debate and floor challenge.''
  I have the utmost respect for the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee. He calls himself a reformer, and I believe that. I've had 
the opportunity to debate him over the past several years on these 
earmarks, and I know that he is troubled by them, as well he should be. 
And I know that he struggles with a way to deal with them.
  I simply believe, and I think people across the country feel that 
we're better served with real transparency. And real transparency is 
not keeping these earmarks secret until the point at which you have no 
ability to challenge them on the floor, when you can simply write a 
letter and ask for a response.

                              {time}  0145

  We are legislators; we are not potted plants here. We are here for a 
purpose. We are here to legislate. And to be relegated to just writing 
a letter and asking for a response is simply not sufficient.

[[Page 15535]]

  So I simply would say, Mr. Chairman, if the majority party thinks 
that they are with people across the country, I would beg to differ and 
I would ask them to reconsider that and wonder if people across the 
country really want a process where earmarks are kept secret until 
people in this body whose job it is to legislate don't have an 
opportunity to legislate.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FLAKE. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  And I know he is serious on this issue, and I respect his integrity 
on this issue and I also respect his consistency. But let me ask the 
gentleman one question.
  Our job is to try to develop a process. It is not a pro forma process 
of review but one that is actually effective.
  The gentleman has offered a lot of motions in the past 2 years to 
strike earmarks. Could I ask him how many of them have been successful?
  Mr. FLAKE. Not one. I came to the floor 39 times and was beaten like 
a rented mule every time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield further, that is 
not the gentleman's fault. He has genuinely tried to ferret out what he 
thought to be troublesome earmarks and occasionally some of mine.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona has expired.
  (On request of Mr. Obey, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Flake was 
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
  One thing that I didn't have when I came before, I never had the 
ability to know whose earmark I was challenging. Many of those 39 times 
I came to the floor, debated, even asked for a vote, and still had no 
clue, after the vote was called and it was lost, whose earmark that 
was. That wouldn't happen today, and I commend the Democrats for doing 
this, because of the rules put in place for disclosure. That is great. 
That is good transparency. But with that transparency, we have to have 
accountability.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?
  Mr. FLAKE. I would.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I agree we need accountability. And I want to 
simply say I don't regard your failure to pass any of your amendments 
as a personal failure on your part.
  Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has done his dead level best. The 
problem is that the system is not conducive to producing real results 
because, as the gentleman himself has said on this House floor, Members 
look at these motions and they say, I am not going to vote for the 
Flake amendment because I have got earmarks hanging out there and I 
don't want to have my endangered. The result has been that nothing has 
happened. That is why we have had some of the problems we have had. We 
could have an honest disagreement about what will be the best system, 
but I would hope that the gentleman would recognize, even though he 
might disagree with it, it is an honest effort to develop a system 
which is far more forthcoming than the one we have had in the past.
  And I would simply point out that while the majority leader indicated 
that he had adopted transparency proposals last year, they conveniently 
arranged them so that they didn't apply to any of the appropriation 
bills that they passed last year. That is not the gentleman's fault. 
But it is the responsibility of the minority leader.
  I thank the gentleman for the time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.


                  Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Flake

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion to rise.
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 312, 
noes 82, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 42, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 465]

                               AYES--312

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Cole (OK)
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--82

     Abercrombie
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Delahunt
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Gonzalez
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Hastings (FL)
     Holt
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jones (OH)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (WI)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Rahall
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Salazar
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)

[[Page 15536]]


     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Welch (VT)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Cohen
       

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Baird
     Bordallo
     Boucher
     Carson
     Clay
     Coble
     Conaway
     Culberson
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Faleomavaega
     Fortuno
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastert
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kilpatrick
     Lantos
     Meehan
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Norton
     Paul
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (TX)
     Stark
     Udall (CO)
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland


                      Announcement by the Chairman

  The CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised there are 2 
minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  0207

  Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion to rise was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. 
Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Frank, 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.

                          ____________________