In This Section...

You are filtering your view of the Congressional Record on the following Member of Congress: (view all)

	Rep. Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is there is never a last word. There is a big debate going on about...
	Rep. Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word. I rise on this issue with just some concern here that we don't lose perspective of what we're really trying to...

Record Text

Chair: Pursuant to House Resolution 473 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2638.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

Chair: When the Committee of the Whole rose on the legislative day of Tuesday, June 12, 2007, the bill had been read through page 2, line 11, and pending was the amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to amendment No. 33 by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Rep. Tom Price [R-GA6]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chair: Has the gentleman from Georgia already spoken on this amendment?

Rep. Tom Price [R-GA6]: No, sir.

Chair: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Tom Price [R-GA6]: Mr. Chairman, I look forward again to a spirit of debate today on an issue that's of the highest importance, I believe, to the American people.

Before we get into the substance of the amendment, I thought it might be appropriate to review a few items of discussion as we closed last evening. We had some good friends on the other side who talked about all of this being "a waste of time." Well, Mr. Chairman, I am here to tell you that my colleagues and I believe that any time that we can fight on behalf of the American people for transparency and for accountability and, yes, for democracy, that that is not a waste of time.

We heard last evening that our discussion points on this appropriations bill, which spends billions of hard-earned taxpayer money, that it was long on process and short on policy. Well, Mr. Chairman, our policy regarding the earmark issue, which has now grabbed the attention of the entire Nation, our policy was complete transparency and an opportunity not just to be informed about earmarks, but to have an up or down vote, an up or down vote and the opportunity to vote on each individual special project. That is an apparent novel thought to our new majority, and we would encourage them to visit the rule that we had in place prior to the change in leadership.

We also heard last evening that we weren't hearing any facts by the minority party. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that their earmark policy, the majority party's earmark policy is simply a slush fund to spend money as they or one individual may deem fit.

As we revisit this second-order amendment, I think it's important for the American people to appreciate and for our colleagues to appreciate that what this amendment would do would be to decrease spending by the majority party by about $8.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that's $8.5 million in savings to the American people.

Now, I know to some here in Washington that may seem like a paltry sum, but $8.5 million is a lot of money. It's a lot of money, and it's appropriate for us to be discussing how that money ought be spent.

The chairman of the subcommittee said yesterday what we needed was a reality check about this amount of money that was in the bill. He said that the majority party consulted with the Office of Executive Counsel, and this is exactly the amount of money that they said they needed. Well, Mr. Chairman, we consulted some folks, too. We consulted the American taxpayer. The American taxpayer said that we are spending too much money, and that they want greater oversight on the amount of money that this Congress spends of their hard-earned tax money.

Mr. Chairman, this new majority ran on a policy of openness and honesty and candor, and I would suggest that this is hardly a process that could be considered as embracing openness or honesty or candor. If we examine the process that's proposed by the majority party, it would allow appropriations bills to have a line in them. Every appropriations bill would have a line in it, it would say "trust us, just trust us." Any Member that then wanted a special project or an earmark would write a request to the Appropriations Chair, the Appropriations Chair would then decide if that project had merit, not the House, the Appropriations Chair, and then we would be informed. No opportunity to identify that particular project, projects would simply be disclosed. We would be given information.

Well, Mr. Chairman, this issue isn't about disclosure. It's not just about knowing what's in the bill. It is about having the opportunity, as our constituents would desire, for us to debate the issue, for us to debate each of those special projects, for us to deliberate on them. It would be an opportunity for us to follow the rules of the House. It would be an opportunity for transparency, and a much greater opportunity for accountability.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is about ideology, yes, about who ought to be better able to spend the hard-earned taxpayers' money, whether it's Washington or whether it's our constituents. And it's about a slush fund that we are beginning to get a sense is recurring in bill after bill, and in these appropriations bills, a slush fund in every bill that would allow the majority party to determine where those special projects would be funded.

So what's the solution? What's the solution? We had a long debate yesterday, a long discussion yesterday. And I think it is important that we put on the table the solution that would be most appropriate, and that is, I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, a moratorium. Let's have a moratorium on all earmarks. Let's make it so that we do what the American people, what our constituents would desire, which is to get together and solve this challenge that we have. It's not a Republican challenge or a Democrat challenge, it's an American challenge: How do we most wisely and most responsibly spend the American taxpayer money?

I would support a moratorium. I urge my colleagues to adopt this amendment as we learn and work to responsibly spend taxpayer money.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX23]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Let me take this opportunity, first of all, to congratulate the chairman, Congressman Price, on this particular piece of legislation. Let me also share with you, as a member of this particular subcommittee, of this particular committee, we had some 22 hearings. The gentleman speaks about the importance of being able to see, in terms of transparency. We had 22 hearings. That is much more than in the previous time.

We had an opportunity, also, to visit the border. We went through Arizona all the way down to San Diego. We had a chance to look in terms of the border and the type of technology that is required in order to safeguard our border, not to mention the fact that we also looked at the different types of fences that are being utilized. And there is no doubt that there is a need there, especially in the areas in Arizona and elsewhere where we visited, where there is a need for blocking vehicles from coming in.

I was really impressed with the type of technology that is already there. And I am impressed that the bill will also provide additional resources to allow additional technology throughout the entire border.

This bill is a bill that authorizes direct Federal funds to also help law enforcement officers on the border. I represent 700 miles along the Texas/Mexico border. I have probably the largest district that comprises those 700 miles along the border. And we have a tremendous amount of resources and need in that area in order to safeguard the community as well as provide good security.

One of the things that we provide is the Stone Garden project. That allows resources to be able to be utilized by the sheriffs and by the local law enforcement officers to help out, and all the other communities to be able to participate with the Federal officers to be able to make things happen on the border.

Let me just share a few examples. We get complaints from some of my communities that are very small, right on the Mexican border, that might have three to six policemen. One little car accident or one item can get them all engaged in that one activity while the local taxpayer has to carry the burden. The Federal Government has the responsibility, and this bill allows that opportunity to do that.

To us, homeland security is important. Homeland security is key. This bill has no earmarks. In the past, I have been informed that it has had very few earmarks. And so it is something that is critical and important. We felt that we needed to provide additional resources to some of those communities. There is also a need for us to provide those resources on not only the south, but on the northern border, also.

The bill provides grants to hire, train and equip local law enforcement officials in these communities. There is also some reimbursement for individuals that are caught, undocumented individuals on the border, whether they be trafficking with drugs or with human smuggling, which is also an area that we need to continue to work on. This bill allows that opportunity for us to begin to fill those gaps.

There is no doubt that we have not made the investment. This bill begins to provide that investment that is needed to protect our borders.

The reimbursement of county and city law enforcement agencies for costs also associated with detaining, housing and transporting individuals who have entered the country illegally is essential because my border community, the local taxpayer, has to carry that burden. This Federal Government has a responsibility.

So I share with my individual friends on the other side and say that it is important for us to pass this piece of legislation. I think it provides good resources for our communities throughout.

It also provides funding for the construction and maintenance and operation of detention facilities that are essential. As you well know, in some cases, sometimes we will find some 80 illegals coming in through Arizona, and you pick up a large number of individuals. So you have to have the number of staff required in order to process them and in order to bring them through. We also provide the resources that are needed to begin to enhance the technology that is being utilized in order to make that happen.

What is also important to note is we also need to begin to see what is more cost effective when it comes to the border in terms of the technology. There has been a lot of talk about the fence. The reality is that a border patrolman will tell you that the fence allows you 1 or 2 more minutes just to be able to do that.

Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chair: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: Mr. Chairman, aren't we supposed to alternate between sides?

Chair: The gentleman from New York is a member of the committee.

Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16]: Mr. Chairman, last night and most of yesterday we saw a very unfortunate situation take place on the House floor: discussions, anger, tempers, and very little on the substance or the bill or the work of the committee.

I rise today to remind us of the work this committee has done in a bipartisan fashion before we came to the floor. I have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee since it was formed. So has Mr. Price, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know for certain that on the other side the former chairman and ranking member, Mr. Rogers, has been a member since the creation of the committee. From day one, the committee has taken its work very seriously.

This year, under new leadership, the committee continued to take its work seriously. We held 20 hearings plus a couple of field hearings, over 50 hours of public hearings. Decisions, information was not gathered in private. These were public hearings. Over 70 witnesses came before us both from government and those who have the knowledge to advise us on these issues.

During those hearings, every member was treated fairly. In fact, one of the highlights, I think, was the way in which Mr. Price worked with Mr. Rogers and the way that Mr. Rogers continued to play such an important role in these hearings in presenting his views, his knowledge and his expertise.

That kind of bipartisanship, that kind of presentation, that kind of work led to the bill that we have before us. It is one of the few bills in this House where those of us who are part of the committee know well how serious the issue is and how much we have to do to try to assign the proper dollars.

When the bill left committee, there were, of course, a few disagreements. But there was a bipartisan belief that we were doing that which we were challenged to do, that we were asked to do, which was to put forth a bill that secured the homeland, that protected the homeland.

Yet, what we saw yesterday did not speak to that at all. What we saw yesterday was personal attacks. It was discussions about issues that were not involved in this bill. Interestingly enough, the number one decision yesterday was to attack earmarks. Yet Mr. Rogers set a precedent, which was followed by Mr. Price, that if there is a bill that does not deal with earmarks, it is this bill.

Now, that needs to be repeated. Of all the bills to pick on to deal with the issue of earmarks, this is the wrong bill. This was something instituted by Chairman Rogers and continued by Chairman Price on a bipartisan level. This is so serious, this issue at hand, and these dollars are so serious and so dedicated in the way they are appropriated that the earmarking process perhaps should not play a role at all. And it hasn't, up to now, I assure you. Otherwise I would have gone to Chairman Rogers and gotten something in the last few years. I didn't because it just did not exist.

So now we find ourselves with a decision to make today: Will we continue to behave on the floor as if we were discussing the reelection for Congress in 2008, or do we really want to send to the President's desk a bill that speaks to the needs of our community in securing our homeland?

I represent the Bronx, New York City. I was in New York City on September 11. I was not here with my colleagues. As I have said often, my son was running for the New York City Council on that day, and the election was cut off at 11 o'clock in the morning because of the terrorist attack. That is something no one writes about, that the terrorists were able to stop our electoral process in the biggest city in the Nation around 11 a.m. The elections were run 2 weeks later. So I was there helping my son on election day. I remember the pain and the horror that you all know about of seeing my city attacked.

I take this bill personally very seriously. I take the bill as a Member of Congress personally very seriously. This committee has taken this bill very seriously. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, takes protection and the safety of the homeland very seriously.

Let's make sure that all Members take it seriously. Let's pass the bill.

Rep. Daniel Lungren [R-CA3]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who has just spoken has talked about dedication to homeland security by the members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee, and perhaps inadvertently suggested that others' concern about that does not rise to the same level. I would suggest if that is what the gentleman meant that he is wrong.

I think it is fair to say that all Members in this House were affected, both personally, professionally, and as Americans by the events of 9/11. I would suggest that while some of us may believe the sense of urgency is not maintained at all times with respect to the threat that faces us, there is in fact in much, if not everything we do, the sense of the background of the vicious attack on 9/11.

The gentleman talked about the Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee. I happen to be a member of the authorizing committee, the Homeland Security Committee. I believe we have acted in a bipartisan way.

But just to indicate a few differences between what is in this bill and what we have done in the past on a bipartisan basis or coming out of the Homeland Security Committee, the chemical protection regime that we established last year, after much discussion, after much debate and after much balancing is changed in this bill.

The border fence, which has been the subject of much debate, much attention, I happen to support it and proudly support it. I do not believe it is the panacea, but it is part of the solution. Many in the American public have wondered whether we meant what we said when we passed the legislation that authorized and appropriated funds for the border fence. They must have many more questions today, because in this bill it makes it more difficult to complete that task. Some would suggest it makes it impossible. Now, I happen to be a lawyer; I plead guilty. But if I wanted to have lawsuits to stop the fence, I would say hallelujah when I looked at this version of the law that is contained in this bill that is presented to us.

One of the gentlemen on the other side talked about detention facilities. I introduced the first piece of legislation that stopped the "catch and release" program followed by this administration and previous administrations dealing with OTMs, or "other than Mexicans," caught on our southern border. One of the reasons why they were caught and released and told to come back in 60 or 90 days for their court appearance, and 94 percent of them never did, by the way, was because we didn't have sufficient detention facilities. So ICE has said in addition to those we own, we ought to see whether we can use privatized detention facilities. This bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, to do that.

So please don't tell us on the floor that some on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than we are.

This bill places restrictions on personnel management policies that have been adopted by the Homeland Security Department, recognizing the uniqueness of their mission.

So please don't tell us that those on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than are we.

Perhaps those on the other side of the aisle believe that the only way you show sincerity is by throwing more money at it. There is a difference. That is why the ranking member, the former chairman of this subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment to bring this back down to a level that can get passed. If you want a veto, as you did for 120 days with the question of supporting our troops, you can get it on this as well.

The former chairman, the current ranking member of the subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment that will make it more probable than not that this bill will be signed by the President. Yet, in an effort to show that you feel more on this issue by throwing more money at it, you are going to subject us to the same political routine that we just went through with respect to funding our troops. 120 days lost.

We have plenty of time to debate this bill and other bills on the floor. All we have to do is make sure we stay here and debate it.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Chair: Has the gentlewoman been recognized on this amendment yet?

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.

Chair: The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to sit here last night and then today and listen to some of our colleagues who find it incumbent to step to the microphone and say this is not a worthy debate and to talk about frustration and talk about anger and talk about this being a debate of little substance.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to everyone that serves in this Chamber and the people that they represent, this is indeed a very worthy debate. It is a debate that deserves our best effort. It is a debate that deserves our focus and our undivided attention.

It is also a debate that we should enter into with respect for the American taxpayers, the ones that are sending their hard-earned dollars here and their expectation that we should be, that it is incumbent upon us to be good stewards of every single penny that comes to this House.

So for those who feel that the moments we are spending on this floor are not worthy, I would commend to them to think about the taxpayer that is hard at work right now, maybe in a job they don't even like, maybe doing something they don't really love, but they are working hard to provide for their family and they are working hard to meet their obligations and pay their taxes and to make certain that they do their part to be a good American citizen.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the frustration, anger and "of little substance" that was spoken of by one of my colleagues a bit earlier this morning, is probably exercised by the American taxpayer who looks at the increases in spending that have been brought forward by this majority. They are the ones who are frustrated. I think they are the ones who are angry. And I think that they are probably the ones who look at what is taking place and they fear that money is being put into items that are not substantive.

Now, this new majority has already increased appropriations $105 billion. This is a 5-year cost of what they're wanting to appropriate. For '07, we've got $587 billion they've appropriated. They've already designated $23 billion in an '08 budget and it goes on and on and on, the increases in spending.

Certainly we know that the bill before us, this homeland security bill, would be a 13.6 percent increase. And as I speak on Mr. McHenry's amendment, I commend him for bringing forward something that would cut just a little bit, just a little bit, out of these expenditures. But the truth, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a philosophical difference in how we approach this debate from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Now, we heard last night that the decision on how appropriations should be done and how earmarks should be handled should be delegated to some of the professional staff. I heard from a couple of my constituents on this issue who really could not understand why we would want to delegate that authority, not review these earmarks ourselves, not want to cast a vote on those. They feel like that is our job, just as they feel like it is our job to oversee this budget, just as they want to know how this $36 billion is going to be spent on homeland security. They want to see a more transparent and a more open budget process. They don't want to see secret slush funds returned.

They heard about these. They didn't believe it in the 1970's. They didn't believe they really existed in the 1980's. And then we had the advent of the Internet, 24/7 news, people could log on, and they started realizing, yes, there were these secret slush funds and smoke-filled rooms and that's how money got appropriated and sequestered for specific projects, something that they really didn't like. That is one of the reasons that we saw a change in '94 and things were done differently. <center><pre>[Page: H6350]</pre></center>

I enjoyed that debate. I enjoyed that little history lesson last night. But I think as we review our situation that we find ourselves in today, what we see is a need for more transparency. We see a need to rein in this funding.

Rep. Chaka Fattah [D-PA2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I think that this discussion on this bill today should begin with an appropriate appreciation for the great work of the chairman and the ranking member. Both Chairman Price and the gentleman, Mr. Rogers, the ranking member, have done an extraordinary job in crafting a bill to address the real challenges facing our Nation in terms of homeland security. I think that the fact that there have been cuts in various programs shows that it was a rigorous process, but I think that the additions are also equally important.

I wanted to point out in particular a number of the sections in this bill: This domestic nuclear detection office is so important, because I think that we all know based on the information both in classified and declassified briefing material, and for the general public, whether it's watching Jack Bauer or however they may gather their information, that it is a real concern in our Nation, the possibility of a nuclear strike at one of our major urban centers, a nuclear device, a dirty bomb. This domestic detection office and the funding for it allocated in this bill, I think, is important.

I think that the availability of grants for our first responders. I come from the Philadelphia region. I don't want to prejudge any of the cases, but we have had arrests that have been widely noticed in the national media of people allegedly preparing to strike at Fort Dix in New Jersey. We've seen the incident at the JFK airport where the discussion is around people who were focused on potentially doing massive harm, attempting to blow up jet fuel lines running from Linden, New Jersey, all the way into the JFK airport.

So the question of homeland security, protecting our borders, adding thousands of additional Border Patrol guards, I think that this House has been well served by the capable leadership of the chairman, Chairman Price, and the ranking member. They've brought a quality bill to the floor. This is my first term serving on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, a committee that was previously led by the ranking member but is now being led by Chairman Price, but they have put together a bill that came out of our full committee and out of our subcommittee with strong bipartisan support.

Even though, Mr. Chairman, we hear some comments from the other side, we know that they don't really represent the total views of the Members either on our side or the other side, because this bill got quality support in committee. I know that when we get a chance to vote on this bill, when we get a chance to vote on increasing State grants for law enforcement, $950 million, $50 million above the 2007 number and $700 million above the President's request for grants to help local communities plan, equip and train first responders, that this bill is going to get a resounding level of support in this House. There probably wouldn't be more than a handful of Members, if that, who are going to vote against this bill. Even though we have a lot of discussion about things that are not really meritorious, in this bill there is a great deal of meritorious approaches to protecting our Nation from real threats.

These are real threats that are playing themselves out on our borders and in our cities each and every day, and our local and national law enforcement community needs the resources that are being made available and appropriated in this bill.

I am very appreciative of the effort that has been put in the urban area grants and in the fire grants, and after Katrina and the work that has been done on emergency management and the performance area.

I would hope that before too many people are swayed, that somehow this bill doesn't represent our efforts to deal with the challenges facing our country, that they really look at the details, Mr. Chairman, and some of the political grandstanding that is going on will give way and we will get to the heart of this issue and the country will be in a position to appreciate the great work of our chairman and the ranking member. I have had the pleasure of serving with them, seeing the hearings and seeing the oversight.

Rep. John Kline [R-MN2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to commend my colleagues for their activities over the last day. Many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have come to the floor and offered amendments, in some cases, to do something, perhaps small but something to try to control the explosion of spending that we're seeing come forward through this budget and through this appropriations process. And so I want to commend my colleagues from North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, whose amendment we are debating now, which is a secondary amendment to our colleague, Ms. Foxx from North Carolina. I know it's a little confusing sometimes. These are efforts to try to control runaway spending, billions and billions of dollars, to be paid for, as we have heard in this debate, by the largest tax increase in American history. I applaud the efforts of my colleagues to try to do something to get our arms around that spending.

But there is another reason why we have been coming to the floor, and that is to shed some light into a horribly flawed process of earmarks. One of our colleagues, the gentleman from New York, I believe, earlier came down and said, "Why are we talking about earmarks? There aren't any earmarks in this bill." Well, you see, that's the point. We don't know if there are earmarks in this bill. We don't know if there will be earmarks in this bill, but frankly the suspicion that we have is that sometime in July, or perhaps August, we will find out that indeed there are going to be earmarks in this bill and we, Members of this House, are not going to have a chance to challenge those earmarks on this floor, and that is simply unacceptable.

Now, there has been a great deal of media interest to bring focus to this. In fact, in this morning's paper, a local paper here, Roll Call, there is an editorial called Pork Rules that ought to underscore the very problem. I am just going to quote a couple of paragraphs from that story, because I think it does underscore the very issue that we're talking about on the floor of this House.

It says:

"Under furious attack from editorial writers and Republicans, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D-Wis.) has come up with a new disclosure policy on earmarks. It's better than his previous one, the airdrop policy, but it's a far cry from full transparency." It's that transparency issue that we've been trying to get at.

Continuing the quote:

"In a remarkable press conference Monday in which he read nearly every word of a 14-page earmark policy declaration before taking questions, Obey pledged that Democrats would fully disclose every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July."

I would say to my colleagues, that is well past the proposed date that we are supposed to be voting on this and every appropriations bill in this House. So we will know every earmark and its sponsor by the end of July, at which point we can do absolutely nothing about it.

Continuing the quote:

"That kind of disclosure would be only partially in keeping with the earmark rules Republicans put into place in September, after they got into no end of political trouble for corrupt, opaque special-interest pork trading. But the GOP rule made it possible for earmarks to be individually challenged in debate on appropriations bills." And that's the point.

We heard the debate last night repeatedly that went something like this: Well, you Republicans put in earmarks, thousands of earmarks, and you airdropped earmarks into bills in conference, and so you did it, we're going to do it. But we're going to do it better because we're going to post a list sometime in July or August, at which time nobody will be able to vote on it.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, the earmark process in this body, in this Congress, on both sides of this Capitol, has been broken for years. There is no question about it. There is a reason why many of us have decided that the process is so broken that we won't participate in it. So claiming that you were bad and, therefore, we can do it, strikes me as a very hollow and weak argument. I hope my colleagues would agree with me on that. Just because somebody made a mistake doesn't mean that we are then authorized to make a mistake. We are seeking transparency. That was the promise made to us and the American people, that we would be able to look at these earmarks and be able to debate them on this floor and be able to vote

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I was gone yesterday because of the funeral of a dear friend of mine in Texas, and I only returned to Washington late last night. I was listening to the debate last night and then this morning.

I must say, it is a great country when the architects of the largest deficits in American history can come to the floor of this House and have the right to stand up and lecture other Members about fiscal responsibility and the need to reduce earmarks.

As a Democrat in the new majority Democratic House, I am proud to be part of an effort that is reforming the earmark process, making it more transparent, reducing the number of earmarks, and we are moving this country in the right direction.

Speaking of moving this country in the right direction, I think most Americans would like to see this House on a bipartisan basis move forward and pass one of the most important pieces of legislation we will vote on this year, and that is the legislation to defend the American family, our families, from the threat of terrorism and the threat of terrible natural disasters.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if anybody wonders whether the debate we are hearing from the other side of the aisle is a delay tactic or not, I would ask those listening, do you even know which amendment is being debated right now. I have been sitting here for 30 minutes, and I have not heard much of anything, if at all, about the amendment before the House. I think that is good evidence that what this is really about is not a substantive debate on the amendment before the House. It is a stalling tactic, because those who lost the majority because they could not set the right priorities for this country are now trying to stop the new majority from moving our country in a new direction and trying to stop us from making a top priority out of defending our homeland, our communities and our children and families from the threat of terrorism.

For the record, let me just say, in case you haven't heard it from the minority side, the amendment we are supposed to be debating right now is an amendment by Mr. McHenry. His amendment would actually cut in half the general counsel's budget for the Department of Homeland Security, basically putting at jeopardy the operations of one of the most important agencies in our country.

It is a fact of life that one must have a general counsel's office in order to follow the laws of this land and in order to implement programs effectively and efficiently to defend our homeland, and I think it is irresponsible to propose cutting that in half.

It is not only irresponsible in my book, I find it interesting that some of the very same Members of this House who are saying we should not vote for my Homeland Security appropriations bill that spends $1 more than the President's budget requested because we should listen to the President, now those same people are turning a blind ear to the President's request and the need to have an adequate general counsel's office and are trying to gut the general counsel's office in half. They need to make up their mind: is it critical that we do what the President asked for or not.

In fact, I think we should exercise our constitutional independent authority as Members of Congress and pass the appropriation bill that we think is right for defending our country. I make no bones about my support for some of the increased funding in this bill compared to the President's request.

Let me be specific: the President's budget would propose cutting the first responder training program from $88 million to $38 million. There might be some of my colleagues on the Republican side of the House that think we should simply make that cut because the President asked for it. I disagree.

What would be the consequence of such a disastrous cut? It would eliminate over 900 specialized training courses for emergency responders. Those emergency responders are firefighters, police officers and EMS personnel. They are being trained in a coordinated national training program to help protect our families' lives when our communities are hit by natural disaster, or God forbid, by terrorist attack. The proposed cut in the President's budget would actually stop specialized training in prevention protection and response recovery to over 100,000 emergency responders each year.

I am proud that this budget, which by the way passed the House Appropriations Committee on an overwhelming bipartisan voice vote, this budget, this bill, is a good bill. It does spend more than the President requested, but for the right reasons: to defend Americans from the threat of terrorism and natural disaster.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has expired.

(On request of Mr. Rogers of Kentucky, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Edwards was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: I have a question: Shouldn't all items in an appropriations bill, whether it be for an agency or for directed spending by a Member of Congress, should that not be voted on by the entire body, and shouldn't we have an opportunity to inspect as a body all spending in an appropriations bill, including earmarks?

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Reclaiming my time, the fact is that Members of Congress, the House and the Senate, will have an opportunity to vote on this legislation. If there are egregious projects in this that come from the administration or from individual Members of Congress, they can vote this bill down.

I hope we can get back next year to the regular order of business; but the reality is that this Congress had to dig out of the hole created by the leadership in the last Congress that didn't pass 11 of 13 appropriations bills, and that is one of the reasons we are in this situation today.

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as a Member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, I come to you, America, with a good bill. It is unfortunate the tactics over the last 24 hours has not allowed us to move forward to protect American citizens.

The President's budget came to us with a cut of $50 million for the first responders. Homeland security has to talk about hometown security. It is about a partnership with our Federal Government, our State government, and our local communities. So right off the bat a budget that cuts first responders $50 million is not a good budget.

We have before us a good budget, a budget that has been put together so that it takes care of hometowns better than presently. So that if, God forbid, another terrorist attack or natural disaster happens, we will be better able to meet that need. It is a budget that I believe deserves our support. And when passed by this Congress, and I predict it will be passed after the tactics have wilted and gone away, then we will have a good bill.

I am from the State of Michigan. In Michigan, we have the largest population of Arab Americans outside of the Middle East. They have been our friends for decades. They work in our communities and go to school with our children. They produce and pay taxes. It is unfortunate after 9/11 a population of Arabs from other countries brought havoc on our country, and they should be caught, they should be punished, and they should be dealt with.

I only mention the Arab population because I also in my district have the international waterway of the Detroit River that separates the city of Detroit from the country of Canada, Windsor, Ontario, Canada specifically. Canada is one of the greatest friends that our country has. I am sad to report, as you know, many countries in this world are not so friendly to the U.S. because of many things that have happened by this administration over the last 8 or so years.

But the bill before us is a good one. It protects the northern border where I come from, where things come in and out of that border every day. Over a billion dollars of commerce passes the Ambassador Bridge every day. This bill provides more money to protect America, protect commerce, and protect the people who live in that region.

The local grants, the grants to first responders have been increased in this bill. We need to have that partnership. You can't talk about homeland security unless you talk adequately about hometown security. This bill does that.

We talk all of the time about how we move forward in this country. I believe it is how we work together in a bipartisan way; and over the last almost 24 hours now, in a bill that is almost $35 billion, we have been unable to move forward to protect Americans citizens. Your Federal budget is $2.9 trillion. There are three main entitlements that we pay for to help American citizens, 44 million Americans who are participants in our Medicare program, entitlements that are part of that budget, Medicaid, low-income, disabled children, over 40 million of them who are part of this budget. And our veterans, veterans who have protected this country since our inception. We have to treat them better, and this budget and the budgets that come after this do that. The President's budget did not.

This is the first of 12 budgets, and it is unfortunate that we are at a stalemate and can't protect American citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I stand here asking that the process go forward. You have made your point. We hope that we come back and have some kind of dialogue so we can better make the proposition that America deserves to be protected, as this Homeland Security bill does.

In the metropolitan area of Detroit, we have 5 million people who live in that area, 219 cities and townships. It hosts the largest multicultural population probably in this country. We need a good Homeland Security bill. We have one here before us. Let's let the process go on. I hope the leadership on both sides of the aisle can come together and talk about how we can move this process. We don't need to be stalemated. Yes, we can stay. We can stay for the next 2 months and never go home, but is that really what America needs us to do?

Recently, regarding the Congress, like the President, the American people have said they are disappointed with both of us. They want us to move forward. Let's pass this Homeland Security bill and get on with the business of building the Nation for God's children.

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Before the gentlewoman from Michigan leaves, I wonder if she would yield to a question.

I was wondering, the gentlewoman mentioned, and I appreciate what she is saying about leadership getting together, she mentioned a $50 million cut to first responders. Can you tell me how much is unspent from previous appropriations?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13]: Not at this time, but I would be happy to work with you to get that. The money has been appropriated. All of the locals that have come before our committee have asked that we give them more help. Intraoperability is a major problem. They need the technology so they can operate and protect the people they represent.

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just comment that there is $5 billion in the first responder grant program which has not been accepted by States, and each year about September they have to give back a portion of that. And the underlying bill appropriates $4 billion more, and that is the reason that the President cut $50 million out.

He said there is so much money unspent, let's begin to lower the level we are pouring into it, and it seems to me a reasonable suggestion.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. There is nearly $5 billion in the grant funds for State and local communities for first responders. It has been there for a couple of years.

I don't know why we don't insist that the authorizers in this body write the rules so that these communities can get their hands on that money and use it for the purposes for which it was intended. The money is laying there. I don't know why we are continuing to pour billions more into it when the hopper is full already. Let's fix the system and unclog the pipe that drains the hopper.

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick [D-MI13]: I certainly agree with the gentleman. We need to see that the money moves out. There also has to be staffing and organizations to make sure that the money that is appropriated is spent wisely. Locals need it, and it is our responsibility to get it to them.

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). He mentioned last night that the underlying amendment is Mr. McHenry wanting to take money out of the appropriation for the lawyers, and he pointed out we have 77 staffers in order to watch for circumstances like the Dubai Ports.

I would comment that the gentleman's party has been in the majority now since January, and 80 percent of our ports are still controlled by foreign countries. Have you put a bill in? If that is true, and it is, 80 percent controlled by foreign countries, that is the exact circumstance you mentioned we would not want to cut this budget for. I am asking if the gentleman knows of any plans on his side to simply eliminate those contracts, to take the contracts away from the foreign countries. It seems like if the gentleman is concerned, 80 percent of our ports are controlled, that there would be something in the works to do that.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Is the gentleman suggesting that those contracts should just be cancelled outright by legislative fiat?

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: I am asking. The gentleman seemed concerned, and I am asking him if he has any intent to do that.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: As the gentleman well knows, there has been a great deal of concern on both sides of the aisle about the functioning of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. There is a consensus, I believe, that CFIUS slipped up on this Dubai Ports deal and that CFIUS needs to be strengthened.

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: If I may reclaim my time.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: You asked me a question about the 77 legal positions in the general counsel and the directive that the next hiring be to strengthen up this CFIUS capacity.

Rep. Steven Pearce [R-NM2]: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his answer, and I did hear him say that those are valid contracts, but I would point out and I'm reading now from a January 17 bill where the majority in their H.R. 6 bill, the Washington Post editorial says, "The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government."

And it says, "The main problem with the House bill is that hitting up oil companies is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. The Nation needs to accelerate the development of less-carbon-intensive fuels," and it declares in this that the heavy-handed attack of H.R. 6 is something that would be welcome in Russia and Bolivia and other countries but not in the U.S.

And so my point is that the gentleman's party has already decided that contracts are not especially valid, but I would simply say that if contracts are valid contracts, then they should be valid throughout the spectrum of vision that the gentleman has.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

First, I'd like to start out by saying that I do serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. It's a deep honor for me to be there. It's a deep honor for me to work with Chairman Price, who is an honorable man and has done hard work on this bill. It's an honor for me to work with Ranking Member Rogers, who has done hard work on this bill.

And I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there has been a lot of diligence on this bill, a lot of hard work on this bill, and in my opinion, every Member of this Congress probably has, as a first thought, what the Homeland Security Department does to protect our families from terrorists around the world and from other disasters that can strike our families. I can assure you that this subcommittee certainly does that.

This hard work being done does not mean that there aren't differences of opinion on how things should be done because, in fact, in our very subcommittee, and in the overall committee of the Appropriations Committee, there is a difference of opinion on directions that we should take.

Just, for example, on the issue of the border fence, there are those who think that the border fence needs to be built and it needs to be built now, and all obstructions have to be taken away from that that might obstruct building that fence. I happen to be one of those people, and yet, honorable men and women disagree. And those who are in the majority, they do set the policy for the bill that is before us today.

I personally think that it's our duty and responsibility as Members of Congress to debate the issues, whether you're on the Appropriations Committee or not, and by raising issues that are being raised on this side of the aisle on this bill, that we are saying that the Appropriations Committee has not done their job. We're saying we want to put a microscope, put sunshine on the process and see what we see, and then each Member, whether they be right on their amendment or whether they be wrong on their amendment, certainly has the responsibility to submit their opinion on this bill.

We talk about a term that I think that's kind of peculiar, and I certainly was not a Member of this Congress when whoever came up with the term "earmark," but there's a whole lot of folks in the United States that know what an earmark is, and it doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing here in Congress today.

It has to do with a method of identifying livestock, and in old days and maybe in some more rustic scenes today, an earmark was actually the notch cut in the ear of an animal. Now, I'm sure that's offensive to many people, but today, it generally is a tattoo or a tag that designates what the owner intends to do with that animal. And at least in the ranching business, they go out and they mark those that are the keepers and the culls. There are the animals that they're going to keep in their breeding stock, and there are the culls which are the ones they're going to take to market and sell as one way the earmark functions.

And the owner of that livestock designates someone to make that designation of how they should earmark the livestock, and I assume that whoever came up with the term "earmark" as it relates to special projects in the appropriations process thought it was a good term because basically, that's the decisions that the owner, i.e., the voter, the American public, asks their individual representative to make about the spending on special projects that's going to be done by the United States Congress.

And so who is the designated person for the 31st Congressional District to make this decision? And I think the people elected me to do that. I think there are 435 individual people here that the folks who originally own this money and gave it to us to use, they said you make the decision on how this money is going to be spent. This is a republic, and we have sent our representative to speak on our behalf to say this is a project that has worth and this is a project that has no worth; this is a keeper and that is a cull.

And that is actually the duty and the responsibility by our oath of every person who sits in every chair of this House.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Carter was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, the reason we are in this debate today, one of the reasons, is we have created a process where instead of 435 people will meet their constitutional obligation of their oath to determine how the earmarks will be spent, we have narrowed it down to one or whatever his designation may be, and I think that is inappropriate, although I will say and I wish to end by saying Mr. Obey is an honorable man, and I have the greatest respect for him.

But that's not the way we were supposed to act when we came to Congress. We were supposed to participate in this process of determining the earmarks.

Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY18]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

As a New Yorker, I must tell you as honestly and openly as I can, that the hours that we have spent on this issue are an embarrassment, an affront to every New Yorker who experienced 9/11, who went down to that site, and saw our brave men and women responding to the emergency, every New Yorker who went to a funeral, to talk to a family about the loss of their loved one because of the lack of interoperability for one thing.

I cannot understand how my friends on the other side could be spending all these hours debating earmarks when we should be passing one of the most important bills of the House.

As Chair of the committee that funds State and Foreign Operations, I've always worked in a bipartisan way. I know my good friends, DAVID PRICE and HAL ROGERS, have always worked in a bipartisan way. We should get on with the business of this bill, and I would be embarrassed to have a constituent watch us, spend all night, all day focusing on Member-directed projects.

You and I know that they need to be evaluated. A process has been in place for transparency. I think we've moved in a very positive direction. So let's get on with the business of this bill.

We have no higher priority than to take every action necessary to protect our country, and I would just like to highlight a few of the provisions in this bill that are so important.

The first would create a pilot program to screen airport workers, and I've worked in a bipartisan way on this issue. In March, two airport workers in Orlando boarded a plane and made it to Puerto Rico with a bag containing firearms and drugs, and this incident set off an alarm, reminding us that we've waited far too long to take sufficient action. Those who have unfettered access to sterile and secure areas of airports need to be physically screened. Meticulously screening passengers but giving workers open access is like installing an expensive home security system and leaving the back door open. This bill is the first step to close this loophole, something that is supported by Members on both sides of the aisle.

Aviation security enhancements are not limited to airport worker screening. The bill makes the necessary investment to purchase and install explosive detection systems. Last year, British authorities uncovered a plot to destroy airliners over the Atlantic, which the terrorists believed would be on the same scale as the September 11 attack. We have to do all we can to reduce our vulnerabilities, particularly to known threats that terrorists have attempted to exploit.

The second item I would like to applaud is the inclusion of much-needed funds for interoperability grants. After September 11, I wrote a bill to require the administration to create an office and grant program dedicated to interoperability and to implement a national strategy. Since that time, the office has been created, and last year's appropriations bill included my strategy proposal. This bill would fund that grant program, which the House overwhelmingly approved in January as part of the 9/11 bill.

I encourage all of my colleagues to go back to their districts and ask first responders what the Federal Government can do to help them. I guarantee that one of the most frequent responses will be interoperability and communications problems. This bill provides not only the funding, but language on standards and other planning provisions that are beneficial.

Third, this bill significantly enhances our ability to protect our ports. One of the biggest fears of security experts is that a terrorist will bring a nuclear weapon into the country through a port. This bill nearly doubles the funding for grants to protect ports and provides much-needed funding for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office to develop and deploy the next generation of radiation portal monitors.

A fourth improvement is transit security. In the last 5 years, terrorists have attacked trains in Madrid, London and Mumbai.

Chair: The time of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Lowey was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Rep. Nita Lowey [D-NY18]: Mr. Chairman, this bill would provide $400 million, more than twice the amount previously provided, for first responders to reduce this glaring vulnerability.

This bill is full of substantive provisions to assist first responders that we need to debate. For example, I look forward to considering several substantive amendments such as one submitted by my friend on the other side of the aisle that would assist a program that provides a ring around New York to prevent a terrorist from bringing a nuclear weapon into the city. But we can't have that debate and others about making our Nation safer if the minority continues to insist on pushing procedural roadblocks.

In addition to serving on the Appropriations Subcommittee, I'm a member of the Homeland Security authorizing committee. We know that the threats against our country are real. Let's end these procedural delaying tactics.

Although the chairman, the ranking member and the members of the committee have produced a really important bill, I know that many Members who are here getting up to speak may have additional thoughts, additional ideas to make our homeland safer. Shame on all of us if we're spending the time arguing procedural tactics and not focusing on the homeland security issues that are before us. As a New Yorker, I am personally offended. Let's move on with it.

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is there is never a last word. There is a big debate going on about earmarks, when there are none in the bill. There were none in last year's bill or the year before's bill. This is the first bill to come before the floor, and they attack this bill saying where are the earmarks.

Well, there are none. Speakers on the other side of the aisle can't stand the fact that there is a new congressional leadership here. It's rolling up its sleeves and doing the oversight work, the oversight work for an agency called Homeland Security that was created just a few years ago, the biggest bureaucracy in modern American history, 200,000 employees, $36 billion in expenditure, made up of all kinds of things from airports, seaports, Border Patrol, immigration, the list goes on and on.

The leadership of this committee decided to really put some fact-finding into it. It had more hearings than any committee in history in this subject matter, visited more sites, visited the borders, the hot spots, visited Katrina sites, talked with Customs and Border Patrol, with harbor district patrol, with Coast Guard, with truck inspectors at the Ota Mesa truck center, the biggest truck inspection center in the word; with the San Ysidro crossing, the largest traffic crossing in the world.

You know what every one of those patrolmen and inspectors told me? We can't do our job unless you pass a comprehensive immigration bill. It's not just about more fences and more assets on the border. It's about the whole enchilada, the whole immigration bill.

I think there is an underlying current here. They don't want an immigration bill, and they know that this is the agency that deals with it. So it's a delay tactic.

Now, a delay tactic, we have been here for 24 hours. We have taken up two amendments. The first amendment cuts $79,000 out of the administrative office of Homeland Security, $79,000 out of a $36 billion bill. But, wait, they adopted a second amendment. It was for a cut for $300,000.

We have successfully cut $379,000 out of a $36 billion bill. It's taken us 24 hours, numerous procedural votes to adjourn, to rise, to do anything but deal with the issue. We ought to be very proud of ourselves.

We have been able to cut one one-thousandth of 1 percent. That's what the great might of the United States Congress has been doing on this bill.

Now, I know that the other side of the aisle likes to cut, squeeze, and trim. They are cutting the agency that they like the most. They are cutting an agency created by President Bush, they are cutting the money that President Bush asked for in this bill, and they have introduced another 110 amendments to deal with more cuts, more frivolity.

Where's your leadership? This is an important bill. It's probably the best-combed bill, best-managed bill in the history of this agency. You ought to be proud of it. You were proud of it in committee, because nobody voiced a negative vote.

So it was unanimous in the Appropriations Committee, everybody liked the bill. Where is your leadership? Where is your responsibility?

Chair: The Chair must ask the gentleman to address his remarks to the Chair.

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, this bill is about finding the answers to interoperability. You have seen that we have interoperability right here. This bill is about responding to first responders, to be a first responder.

The other side of the aisle is neither operable nor responsible for being first responders. Don't call on them next time there is help needed.

Rep. Charles Boustany [R-LA7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, as I look at the flag behind the Speaker's chair, I am reminded about how great our country truly is. If our country is going to remain great, we have to face the threats that are out there, and there are many, many threats.

Clearly, the Homeland Security appropriations bill is an important piece of work to deal with those threats. But there is a threat that's not quite so insidious, and it's the threat of spending, runaway spending in the face of the second largest tax increase in American history.

We need to get serious about this threat, this threat to future generations. We owe it to the American family to be responsible stewards of their hard-earned tax dollars.

I am gravely concerned about the disconnect between a lot of the high rhetoric I hear coming from the other side and the harsh reality that we seem to face here. The rhetoric we hear from the Democratic leadership is about fiscal responsibility and oversight and transparency and full disclosure. But the harsh reality is about none of those things.

I don't see full disclosure here. I don't see transparency. I am deeply concerned about this threat of runaway spending.

Now, I have to say, I fully appreciate the hard work done by the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee and the full committee. The chairman of the committee, the full committee, and the subcommittee, as well as the respective ranking members, have done a lot of hard work.

But their work is incomplete. Their work is definitely incomplete. It's the responsibility of every Member of this body to provide oversight, not just the committee's responsibilities. That is our responsibility, and we have to live up to it.

It is clearly a major responsibility as we look at these possible earmarks that are going to be airdropped into this at a later date. The process is clearly flawed, and the American people clearly deserve better.

I reflect upon a statement by a very famous British statesman, when the British Empire was at its height in the 18th century, and it goes like this: "Magnanimity is seldom not the wisest course for a statesman, for empire and small minds go ill together."

I would submit to you that magnanimity is a very important American virtue, and magnanimity is also the responsibility of the majority, whoever happens to be in the majority.

I ask the majority to live up to its responsibilities.

Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Before I speak, I would like to make one parliamentary inquiry.

Chair: The gentleman will state it.

Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]: If I yield time to the gentlelady from North Carolina at the end of my remarks, and if she made a decision that the House do now rise, is that permissible?

Chair: The gentleman from Kentucky would first have to yield back his time in order for a motion to be in order for the committee to rise.

Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]: But I can yield time to her for her to speak?

Chair: The gentleman may yield to her during his 5 minutes.

Rep. Edward Whitfield [R-KY1]: Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all thank the chairman of the subcommittee on the Democratic side and also on the Republican side for the hard work that they have shown in establishing this appropriation bill for Homeland Security.

Last night I was reading a poll, and I noticed that Congress, as an institution, has an approval rating of less than 30 percent. That certainly is not caused by the leadership of the Democratic Party, because when the Republicans were in control a few months ago, Congress had an approval rating of less than 30 percent also.

But I think it reflects the frustration of the American people about the institution of Congress and how Congress works. I welcome this debate on the earmarks, because I do not view this as a delaying tactic, but I think this is an issue that is even deeper than earmarks and the way that they're handled by the Appropriations Committee.

I am speaking specifically of the fact that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee yesterday mentioned that there was something like 32,000 earmark requests, and that there was not ample time to get through these appropriations bills. Yet every year Congress is consumed by the appropriations process, and every year it takes more and more time, and every year, frequently, we do not even pass all the appropriations bills in the House and the Senate, and we do continuing resolutions, and then we do omnibus bills. The omnibus bills come to the floor, and sometimes they are 8 or 9,000 pages and Members don't even know what's in there, and we are voting on those.

I would remind the Members that about 6 years ago we introduced legislation that would ask the House to go to a 2-year budget and 2-year appropriations process. That bill received over 200 votes in support of it, because I think all of us recognize that this appropriations process and budget process that we now operate under is broken. It simply does not work.

One of the frustrations, I will be very honest about it, on the earmarks is that there is a perception among Members who are not on the Appropriations Committee that the vast majority of earmarks go to the appropriators.

Yet all of us represent the same number of people, all of us represent taxpayers, and all of us are entitled to earmarks.

But it's an unfair process.

I know, from discussions that I have had with a lot of Members, I know appropriators get upset with authorizers and say authorizers are not doing their job, and authorizers get upset with appropriators in saying appropriators are authorizing on appropriations bills when they want to.

So I think what this institution needs to do is go to a 2-year budget process, a 2-year appropriations process so that one year we can sit here and argue about money, but the next year we can argue about authorization and reforming education and health care and some of the substantive problems that the American people face instead of every year being totally consumed by the appropriation process.

To me, that's the problem we have today.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from North Carolina.

Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC5]: I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made on the other side. I share the concern that the gentlelady from New York said that this is an embarrassment. She is right. It is an embarrassment that we have to be doing this, but it's an embarrassment to the majority party, because there are principles involved here.

You promised things you are not fulfilling. That's why we are bringing these issues up, and we're going to continue to quote the things that are happening and remind you that that's the reason.

CNN.com today: "Obey says that earmarks can still be scrutinized before the spending bills go into effect, but nonpartisan advocacy groups like Public Citizen says it's not enough." Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen: "It violates the whole spirit of the reform itself. We really did expect that earmark requests were going to be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks."

We're not saying we are opposed to the underlying bill and we're not doing this for delaying tactics.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has expired.

(On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Foxx was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC5]: Mr. Chairman, I also point out that last year, when we debated this bill, the majority party offered 70 amendments to the bill and took over 2 legislative days. We have not even been in this for one legislative day yet, and we're getting complaints that we are utilizing delaying tactics. Let's not say what we should not be doing.

Last night, also, Mr. Obey said that professionals will look at these earmarks. We get complaints all the time that the staff runs this place.

I'm offended by that remark. This is a job for the Members of Congress to be doing. This is not a job for the staff to be doing. I consider we are professionals at this business, and we don't need to delegate the looking at earmarks to staff members. We need to be doing that ourselves, and we need to do it in this process.

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if my colleagues think holding hostage the Homeland Security bill, the bill that funds and protects our cities, our communities, our seaports, our airports from threat of terrorism, if they think that holding up that bill is going to win back the majority, I would suggest that's the same type of out-of-touch approach that caused them to lose their majority in the last Congress.

One of the reasons they lost that majority, the American people wanted this Congress to put first things first to deal with the highest priorities of this country. Yet the previous leadership on the other side of the aisle, constantly, day after day, month after month, got us involved in unimportant issues.

With the new leadership, we're trying to take a new approach.

What's happened, to summarize, this week, we had the chairman, Mr. Price of North Carolina, the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, who put together a bipartisan bill that passed without opposition on a bipartisan basis in the full Appropriations Committee.

Then, the Republican leadership comes along and says, uh-oh, we've got to make a point, and let's hold the Homeland Security Appropriations bill hostage.

If they think that's what the American people want, I think they're sadly out of touch with the priority of Americans in wanting, above else, this Congress to work together to defend our communities and our families.

Where are we? Well, we have Republicans that failed to pass 11 of 13 appropriations bills in the last Congress, they're now trying to kill appropriation bills in this Congress.

What do we have? We have the architects of the largest increase in earmarks in congressional history lecturing us and the American people about earmarks today. And the sad thing is, that not only are they holding hostage the Homeland Security appropriations bill to protect our families and communities, I would speak as the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs and Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee in saying that this delaying tactic is holding up a bill that should be on the floor right now that will provide the largest increase in veterans health care spending in our Nation's history.

So not only is the Republican leadership in this House holding up homeland security, now they are delaying the passage of important legislation that our veterans and our military troops and their families deserve.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the rest of my time to the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Price.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: I thank the gentleman for his very helpful comments. And I want to pick up where Mr. Pearce left us a few minutes ago. I never had a chance to respond to his comments about unspent funding. So I want to take just a minute, if I might, to talk about what the committee, in fact, has done about grants and what kind of funding is available for those versus what we're going to appropriate for fiscal 2008.

We have made some key investments in this bill in State and local grants. The State grants are a modest increase over last year, something like 6 percent. But we've made much more substantial increases in transit and rail grants, which I think, on a bipartisan basis, Members of this House have said is a vulnerability. Certainly they said that on the port security matter with the Safe Ports Act. We have made some increases there.

Fire grants, have broad bipartisan support, as does the SAFER program. So in a number of these areas, we have gone somewhat above last year's funding and above the President's request. But we've done that on the basis of strong evidence and strong bipartisan support that this is needed.

Now, what about the allegation that this money is in the pipeline, that we really don't need to turn to the appropriations process for additional funding?

The charge was made that there's $5 billion unspent in these grant programs. Well, $4 billion of that is obligated. That leaves $1 billion. Let's talk about the $1 billion. $600 million of the $1 billion of unobligated funds are from funds awarded to States and localities during the last 6 months. The remaining $400 million in so-called unobligated funds are from older grants that are actually most likely obligated.

The Department tells us they're only now bringing older data on-line into their grant system, but it's very, very likely that all of that $400 million is obligated.

So forget about $5 billion in unspent funds. It isn't there. We must face up to the implications of needing to do more in these various grant areas.

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent for two additional minutes?

Chair: Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?

Rep. Thomas Edwards [D-TX17]: Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to Mr. Price.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Now, if the allegation is that the Department of Homeland Security has not been nimble enough, has not been responsive enough in getting the grant funds out there, then you certainly won't get an argument from us. Our approach has been to work cooperatively with the Department to improve performance.

There are two provisions in particular in this bill to ensure that Federal bureaucratic hurdles are lessened so that the funds can be used for their intended purpose more efficiently.

As in prior years, the bill mandates that within 60 days of enactment, 80 percent of the State Homeland Security grant funds must be passed through from States to localities. And, as in prior years, the bill mandates a schedule for DHS to issue grant guidance and make grant awards, ensuring that funding reaches grantees in the shortest time possible.

Now, we need to continue pressing. We need to continue working on this. But I think, in pressing the Department for responsive grant programs, we have bipartisan support on that. And in putting the money where we need to put it to make these additional areas safer, we have support on that as well.

All I can say is it would be nice if we would get on to discussing the substance of the bill, as opposed to dealing with desultory tactics.

Rep. John Doolittle [R-CA4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, this has been quite a process since we got rolling yesterday afternoon, and I know there's some frustration over not moving more quickly. But I do think Mr. Boehner made the point very clearly last night and it needs to be reiterated often, that we are simply seeking to have the opportunity to review the earmarks as a body while we can have some impact on it, rather than to have them, as has been said, airdropped into a conference report, where conference reports come to the floor and you have two options only. You can't amend it. You can either adopt the conference report, or you can reject the conference report. As we all know, it's very, very rare to reject a conference report on an appropriations bill. I only remember seeing that happen once since I've been here.

And I just think that, in light of all the rhetoric, particularly from the other side, about the need to have more transparency, and then an action is taken which completely eliminates the progress that had already been made relative to transparency and relative to accountability, and this whole process today really is about are we going to have the opportunity to review the earmarks in these bills, while we can make an impact on it, while we can single some out and remove them, while we can offer amendments, or are we going to simply turn a blind eye, let this be dropped into the conference report? Basically, only, you know, mainly one person is going to control this whole process, and the entire rest of the House is shut out from this process.

That's why this process is moving so slowly, because of this fundamental battle. And, you know, it's seeming like every major media outlet in the country seems to be on the side of transparency and accountability, and yet the majority party continues down this road of avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability. And no good reason has yet been offered as to why we should take this extraordinary move going completely backwards on this issue, instead of having this out here in the light of day as it was intended, as we all argued for both sides should be the case. And that's what we're seeking to ultimately have prevail before this day is out.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join in his frustration. This dispute about how the majority party is hiding earmarks so that the body cannot inspect them, is preventing us from discussing the merits of this bill, which, by and large, is an excellent bill, except for it's overspending. And I'll have an amendment at the end of the bill to address that issue.

So there's really two issues we're talking about here; one is the earmark mess that we're in, and secondly, is the overspending in the bill.

The President has threatened to veto this bill if it exceeds a 7 percent increase. The bill now contains a 13.6 percent increase in spending. That's too much. We really don't need that much money. We do need, I think, a 7 percent increase, which is double inflation. That would take care of the needs that Homeland Security has.

And so at the end of the bill, I will be offering an amendment to give Members a chance to vote to slice 5.7 percent, across the board, off of the spending in this bill, leaving a 7.2 percent increase that has been requested of us by the executives.

And so, I would hope that Members would bear that in mind. At the end of the bill, you're going to have a chance to exercise fiscal responsibility. That's what we stand for. Fiscal responsibility.

So I would urge Members to hold their fire until that time.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Would the gentleman yield?

Rep. John Doolittle [R-CA4]: I'll yield.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Let me just ask a question for clarification on the amendment that is before us which actually has barely been mentioned this morning. Is it not true that neither the McHenry amendment nor the Foxx amendment would be, in effect, incorporated in your amendment, since our expenditures for the item at issue are already below the President's request?

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: If the gentleman would yield.

At the end of the bill, we will have to see what amendments have passed, and then we will look at that and see whether or not that would fit into our across the board cut, and if it might be modified to that extent.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX23]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chair: Has the gentleman already spoken twice, on the amendment and the second-degree amendment?

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX23]: Not on this amendment. I spoke on one of the other amendments.

Chair: The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX23]: Mr. Chairman, I rise today, and I want to indicate how important this bill, H.R. 2638, is to the entire country as a whole. This bill has particular significance for any American concerned about promoting the necessary and difficult objective of protecting our homeland.

As a member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, it has been a pleasure for me to work with the chairman and the leadership on adding language and enhancing the quality of this bill and strengthening the general provisions of it.

As a Member who represents a district that goes from both the Texas to the Mexico border, I'm distinctly aware of challenges that confront law enforcement officers charged with upholding criminal laws such as the drug and human trafficking. In recognition of this inherent danger represented to the law enforcement officials, also to private landowners along the border, and elected officials concerned about the border issues and statutory requirements imposed on the Department of Homeland Security to erect, also, the fence barriers that span 370 miles along the southwestern borders. I was also pleased to dialogue with the chairman on these issues and making sure that we go about them in the right way.

The first objective that I want to just briefly mention and talk briefly about is the fact that our border communities need additional resources. This bill begins to provide those resources. Our law enforcement on the cities, as well as the sheriffs that are unanimously in favor of doing what they can to protect our borders and to protect our communities need help, and they need help drastically. This bill begins to provide this assistance.

I wanted to, again, reemphasize the fact that this bill is an essential bill that allows us to be able to protect this country in a way that we should. I know the other side has talked about the bureaucracy and the fact that we haven't responded appropriately, and I agree with them. We haven't, and that's why we have added some additional resources. That's why we also had 22 hearings of which I can tell you, because I have been here prior to this, and we had not had hearings the way we've had now to hold the agencies accountable. No one knows that better than myself.

I just had a community in Eagle Pass that went through a tornado that killed seven people, also hit the Mexican side, killing three, and the difficulty that I had in getting FEMA to respond and the administration to respond. So I understand the incompetency that exists within this administration and the fact that we've had difficulty in getting them to respond to our needs.

But the bottom line is that when we're hit with floods, when we're hit with drought, when we're hit with tornados and other, we have to be able to have the resources necessary for them to be able to do that. And so when we were hit in Eagle Pass, I remember distinctly going through there. I also went over on the Mexican side, and I deliberately went over there also because I know that they had been hit harder.

And I also went back because I know that the Mexicans, especially from the state of Coahuila, had come to help us during Katrina. They sent their support there in San Antonio, helping to feed some 20,000 that had come to San Antonio from Katrina, and I know that they had been extremely helpful.

But we have got to make sure that FEMA has the resources and that they are also held accountable. I know that we are going to continue to have additional hearings in order to make that happen.

I also want to personally thank our leader for helping us with the Stonegarden project.

I would like to yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I commend him in turn for his work on getting help to the people dealing with the burdens of law enforcement in these border communities. That is what Stonegarden is all about. And he, together with colleagues on the Republican side, advocated very strongly for the Stonegarden funding in this bill.

We also have struck a balance at the gentleman's request. Some very careful work was done on what kind of consultation is desirable and necessary with affected communities before these border barriers are put into place.

So we make no apologies for holding the Department accountable for the technology that is utilized and the plan that is adopted so as to be as effective as possible, to be economical, and also to be responsive to these very particular border communities.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

(On request of Mr. Rodriguez, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Price of North Carolina was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: There has been, Mr. Chairman, a steady flow of town and city officials from Texas in particular who have come to Washington to voice their concerns. We are going to visit them in very short order now to have a first-hand look before this bill goes to conference.

But the work that we have done on this issue, I believe, does strike the desirable balance. We appreciate the Members' input on that because these communities are concerned that the construction of this barrier not go on without some regard for their history and their needs.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez [D-TX23]: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to thank Chairman Price.

I know that you also provided some guidance as we went to New Orleans and visited New Orleans and got an opportunity to see still the devastation and the fact that we haven't done enough there, and I want to personally thank you for the leadership in that area. We not only went there, but you also took the committee along the border to look at the fences that are out there, the barriers for cars and those things that are important.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on Ms. Foxx's amendment, and I thank her for being one that realizes one of the threats that we face is a growing Federal budget and out-of-control Federal spending.

And as we have talked about threats this morning as we are debating this Homeland Security budget, it is not lost on us that this is a $36.3 billion budget. It is 13.6 percent more than last year and, as our ranking member has so wisely stated, 6 percent more than was asked for and more money than needs to be in that budget. And, certainly, it does not make good fiscal sense that this would be the type of budget document, this would be the type of appropriations that would be passed for this.

As we talk about threats, one of my colleagues mentioned that we were holding hostage the budget and loved using that term "holding hostage." Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that probably the American people who watch this debate feel like they are the ones that are many times held hostage and their paychecks are held hostage by the Federal Government.

The Federal Government has first right of refusal on that paycheck. They take out what they want before the taxpayers and our constituents see that paycheck. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think they are tired of it.

And they are tired of the type of out-of-control spending that they are seeing from this new majority. They didn't like the spending that was there when we were there. Certainly there are many of us that think that we spent too much, and certainly many of us worked very hard for the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, that reduced $40 billion of Federal spending.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think the American people thought that you all were going to do better than that, that you were going to cut more than we had cut. But that is not what they are seeing.

We have got hundreds of billions of dollars more in spending certainly, $105 billion more in new appropriations, 13 percent more in this single budget alone. It is out of control. Our constituents feel like their paychecks are held hostage, and, quite frankly, we think information is being held hostage.

Now, on the security issue and on this fence, sometimes those of us who are mothers talk about setting up situations that are going to be win-win situations for our children. We like to create an environment where things can succeed. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to funding the fence, what the liberal leadership has done is set up a failure, because what you do is underfund the fence. Then you come along and $700 million of this funding gets pulled into this gray bureaucratic red tape area that probably you are never going to see that fence built.

Now, we had a vote last year. We had 283 Members of this body go to a machine, put in their card, and punch the green button for the fence. That was the vote that was taken. So that leads us to say was that a politically motivated vote? Did they do that because they thought they were looking for reelection? Did they feel like that was what their constituents wanted? Because, certainly, we know one of the things we hear from many of our constituents is "secure the border first."

But now we have a Homeland Security bill and in this $36.3 billion with a 13.6 percent increase over last year, we can't find the appropriate amount of money to fully fund a fence. And that is something that the American people want to see done.

Mr. Chairman, the debate that is taking place here, quite frankly, I think, is a very good debate. It is the type of debate we ought to have, and we ought to do this more often so that people can see what are the philosophies of the left and what are the philosophies of the right. So then they can get an understanding for the philosophical differences of how we view how to go about our jobs, how we view going about handling the taxpayers' money. I think this is a good thing for us to come here and talk about if we want to spend more, if we want to spend 13.6 percent more, or if we want to return to the model of the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, and reduce $40 billion worth of spending.

Rep. John Hall [D-NY19]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, before I address the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, I just wanted to comment that it is interesting, some might say entertaining, to be given a lesson in fiscal responsibility by those Members who helped to run up the biggest deficit and the biggest balance of trade deficit that this country has ever seen. But we will let that go.

For now I would just like to talk about, first of all, the fact that there are no earmarks in this bill. To talk about earmarks on a bill, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which has no earmarks is inappropriate and just a distraction.

In terms of first responders, the part that I would like to address, it is particularly important to my district, New York's 19th, which served and continues to serve New York City. Orange County in my district is the farthest north that first responders from New York are allowed to live. The firemen and policemen of New York may live only that far north from New York City because of needing to be there when they are called in a hurry. And as a result, we have had many fire and police who lost their lives on 9/11 and many are subsequently suffering from respiratory ailments from working on the Ground Zero pile. So we know, not only from that but from planning for other incidents, accidents, attacks that we need to be ready for, that first responders need our help and they need it from this bill, and this bill gives it to them.

This bill gives it to them through Homeland Security grants, which meet the needs of first responders including hiring, training, and equipping first responders. The President proposed slashing the grants by 52 percent. Instead, our bill restores this cut, providing $550 million, which is $25 million above fiscal year 2007 and $300 million above the President's request for Homeland Security grants.

Local law enforcement terrorism prevention programs, this $375 million program plays a key role in assisting local law enforcement agents in information sharing, target hardening, and counter-terrorism planning. The President's budget eliminates this program. Our bill provides $400 million, which is $25 million above fiscal year 2007.

Firefighter assistance grants, the President proposed to slash these grants by 55 percent. Instead, this bill restores the cut, providing $570 million, $23 million above fiscal year 2007 and $270 million above the President's request. And SAFER grants, the President proposed eliminating these Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response, SAFER, $115 million SAFER grants. The program was eliminated by the President in his proposal. We, instead, provide $230 million, which is $115 million above fiscal year 2007.

So in every instance in which first responders need our help, need the Federal Government's assistance, to be able to respond to fire, police, and other security and public safety issues and events, we are trying to provide them with the resources that they need over the President's objections and over his cuts.

I am proud to support this bill, and I submit that I personally don't have any earmarks in it, and I don't know of anybody else who does. So let's please not discuss it in those terms but in terms of what makes the American people safer.

Rep. Jeb Hensarling [R-TX5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened very carefully to the debate last evening and today. And I have heard a number of complaints and concerns from our friends on the other side of the aisle. First let me speak to the process.

There are a lot of complaints that somehow we are spending too much time debating this appropriations bill. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would point out that the last appropriations bill, the one that funded our troops in harm's way, this body spent almost 4 months, almost 4 months, coming up with that appropriations bill. And, Mr. Chairman, as I look at the clock, we haven't even debated this one yet for 24 hours.

Mr. Chairman, we also hear that, well, if you care about homeland security, you have to pass this bill and you have to pass it today. Don't you care about homeland security? Well, Mr. Chairman, as an appropriations bill, to the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in this bill that will go into effect until October 1. So here we are in June and we are being told, no, we can't submit to Democratic procedures here. We can't thoroughly vet and debate this important bill. It has to be passed today, even though it doesn't go into effect until October.

And then, Mr. Chairman, we have heard, well, the reason that we don't have our earmarks listed in the bill, the reason that there is this secret slush fund that someday somehow will be unveiled to all is because, well, the staff hasn't had time to vet all of these earmarks.

Well, Mr. Chairman, again, when our friends from the other side of the aisle took over as the majority and rewrote the rules, apparently they didn't read their own rules very well. Members on both sides of the aisle became confused. Nobody even knew how to submit their earmark request.

So then to turn around and somehow point to this side of the aisle when it was that side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, that created the problem. I mean, it's like the old proverbial person who is being indicted for murder who says, Well, please don't convict me, I know I killed my parents, but now I'm an orphan. Well, they are the ones who caused the problem, Mr. Chairman, so I don't quite understand why they are complaining about the process that brought us here in the first place.

As I listen to the debate, Mr. Chairman, and I do believe this is an important bill, and I believe there is a lot of important work and very important provisions in this bill, but I think also there seems to be, as I listen closely to the debate on the other side of the aisle, there seems to be no appreciation whatsoever of the role the poor, beleaguered taxpayer plays in homeland security, like there is some unlimited vault from the workers of America to pay for all of this.

Mr. Chairman, those on the other side of the aisle, by refusing to do anything about entitlement spending, have put us on a fiscal course to where the next generation won't even have a Department of Homeland Security. Let us learn the lessons of history or we will be condemned to repeat them.

One of the reasons that the Soviet Union, the evil empire, doesn't exist anymore is because their economy collapsed. They could not keep pace. Their workers could not produce what was necessary to defend that state. And now we are looking at our friends from this side of the aisle putting us on a fiscal course that would render our total inability to provide for a Department of Homeland Security.

Now, I know the easy thing to do is kick the can down the road, worry about the next election, don't worry about the next generation; but Mr. Chairman, I don't think that is worthy of this body.

Mr. Chairman, ultimately this comes down to the role of earmarks and our ability to fund this. As my colleague in the other body, Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, has said, earmarks are the gateway drug to spending addiction. Now, I know there are many good earmarks, there are many worthy earmarks; I myself do not request them. But for many Members they have become that gateway drug to spending addiction, making it more difficult to fund our homeland security. Those on the other side of the aisle campaigned for increased transparency, and all we are asking is that Members have the ability to strike at these.

Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I can understand why there would be some confusion on the other side about why we would need to move these appropriations bills in a timely manner because, yes, the fiscal year starts October 1. So what is the urgency, I'm hearing.

I can understand why there is a lack of recognition of the urgency because in the 12 years, Mr. Chairman, that the Republican Party controlled this House, they were able to complete all the appropriations bills on time exactly zero times. They were unable to do it any time in the 12 years they controlled this House.

So, yes, I understand there is some confusion about the process and why it is important to get these bills out on time.

If anyone is interested, the last time that all the appropriations bills were completed on time was 1994, which perhaps, by coincidence, was the last time the Democrats controlled the process in this House. So we do understand the urgency of getting these bills done on time; and we do understand that October 1 is going to be here and we need to complete work on these bills.

Certainly, what has happened in the House the last couple of days, and I would expect is going to happen over the remaining course of the week, and perhaps months, does not bode well for our ability to do that because we are facing a lot of obstruction. I think it would be instructive to talk about what is actually in this bill rather than talk about the procedural gimmickry which is going on to prevent us from passing this bill.

The bipartisan Homeland Security Appropriations bill provides critical funding to improve the Nation's homeland security and implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which have languished for more than 4 years now. One of the first things we did in the first hours of this House was to vote to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. This bill moves us in that direction; it enables us to do that with the funding that is required. I don't think that is something that should wait any longer. We have already waited 4 years from those recommendations. We have waited almost 6 years since 9/11 to see this take place.

This legislation strengthens border security. I hear a lot of talk about border security and immigration. This bill provides emergency first responders with additional training and equipment, and improves aviation and port security, all important aspects of the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

We talk about immigration reform. This bill makes border security the top priority by devoting substantial resources to secure our borders not only against potential terrorists, but also to help stop the growing flood of illegal immigrants entering our country each and every day, totaling more than 12 million at this time.

In this bill, we invest in our Nation's most pressing security needs by hiring 3,000 additional border security agents. That's what we are talking about, we are going to secure the borders. We include $1 billion for fencing. I think that is as important to people on the other side of the aisle as it is to people on our side of the aisle. I don't know why they're delaying this; that $1 billion goes to fencing infrastructure and technology along the U.S.-Mexican border.

We commit $2.1 billion to illegal immigrant detention and removal. We hear about this "catch and release" program as part of the immigration debate. This bill stakes a step in solving that problem. We are in the process of debating that. Let's get it done. Let's stop all the delaying tactics. Let's get this bill done.

This bill provides $550 million in State homeland security grants which are used to hire, train, retain and equip emergency first responders. Is there anyone in this House who doesn't think that's an important priority that we should make a priority and get this bill through the legislative process?

This bill increases funding for firefighter assistance grants. Unfortunately, the President recommended a 55 percent reduction. We put that money back in because I don't know that we can come up with any more important segment of our society than our firefighters, the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day here at home to keep us safe.

We improve aviation security by doubling the amount of cargo screening on passenger aircraft, another key recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. So these are not things that should be delayed.

We invest in port security by providing $400 million in grants to improve critical port facilities and infrastructure. And this Homeland Security Appropriations bill includes strong oversight measures to ensure careful spending of taxpayer dollars. I want you all to hear that: It eliminates the wasteful, no-bid contracts that have led to billions of dollars in losses.

Chair: The time of the gentleman has expired.

(On request of Mr. Carter, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Altmire was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA4]: Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is give our brave men and women who respond to emergencies the tools and resources they need to protect our communities. I can think of no better way to show the American people that we are committed to this.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I just wish to correct your mistake in your opening statement.

I have been serving on this committee for the last 2 years, and the House of Representatives has finished the appropriations process by the 4th of July both terms that I served in Congress. So I think the statement made as an opening was a mistake.

Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA4]: Reclaiming my time, that has not been the case. The House has not completed its work. These bills were not finished and implemented by October 1.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: I beg to differ. These bills were passed by the House of Representatives, in the last two terms I served on this committee, before the 4th of July. I think you can check with the subcommittee chairman, and he will agree with me on that.

Rep. Jason Altmire [D-PA4]: The last time they were implemented on time was 1994.

Rep. Virgil Goode [R-VA5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in talking today about the Homeland Security Appropriations measure, I would like to echo what the gentleman from Texas was referring to. In the 2006 and 2005 calendar years, we did finish the appropriations measures, all 13 of them, or 10 of them, by July 4. We worked diligently. The House got through with its work on these appropriations bills.

There is probably no more important bill for the security of our homeland than this appropriations measure. There are some positive aspects in it, but the spending in it is mighty high.

It is my understanding that the gentlelady from Tennessee will be offering an amendment that focuses on one area that I feel needs additional expenditures of money, and that is with our secure border, the need for fencing, the need for technology there that will prevent the flood of illegals from coming into this country.

The focus of this legislation as a primary topic should be keeping illegal aliens out of this country. During the past several weeks, I have had more calls on that topic than any other measure. And I know a number of the calls, letters, e-mails and faxes were due to the other body's consideration of something called Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which was certainly a misnomer. It was nothing but amnesty, pure and simple, and the overwhelming majority of communications with my office are in opposition to any type of amnesty. They want a fence erected to keep illegal immigrants out.

You know, when we talk about earmarks, in my view there are some good earmarks and there are some bad earmarks. I'm sure that I have a perspective of my district. I like congressionally directed funding for items that benefit the 5th District of Virginia. And I'm sure if you went around the country, others would take a similar approach.

Some would have a policy of no earmarks at all. And let me say, if I get to define earmarks, it would be fine with me if we cut out earmarks right across the board. But some broad, general spending programs, in my view, could also be designated as earmarks. And if we were to follow the approach of the Representative from Texas and Arizona of eliminating all earmarks totally, there would be, in my view, less Federal spending.

There has been a lot of talk about transparency and the need for that with regard to earmarks. One of the things that would get more media attention, more newspaper focus, more television looking at the individual, congressionally directed spending requests would be if they were talked about, debated and voted on in committee. And then, when they came to the floor, those individuals, whether they are on the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle, they could stand up and focus on these individual items and say whether they wanted them or whether they wanted to introduce amendments to strike them and remove them from the bill.

Those who advocate transparency, in my view would do well to follow a policy of putting in earmarks at the committee level, and then having them debated here on the floor.

I hope that as the appropriations process goes forward with other items of legislation beside homeland security, that we can follow that rule so that we would get much greater attention and focus and, in my view, transparency on earmarks.

In closing, I want to reiterate my support for the Blackburn amendment that will increase funding for the fence and for border security, and take it from certain other administrative areas in the Department of Homeland Security.

Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: I thank the gentleman for yielding. I will consume about 15 seconds just to respond to the question that was raised about the Republican track record in passing appropriations bills.

The gentleman might want to talk about when the Labor-HHS bill was passed last year. I think what he will find is that not only was it not passed by July 1, it was not passed at all.

Rep. Steve Israel [D-NY2]: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a legitimate debate on the question of earmarks. I understand it is a fair topic to be debated on the floor of the House. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the other side would be defensive about this issue in that their abuses of the earmark process, and their bulldozing to passage of these earmarks resulted in so much excoriation by the press, and a lost election and the incarceration of their Members.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a time and a place for debate on these issues, and this bill is not the time or the place. This is the Homeland Security appropriation, Mr. Chairman. This is the last bill that ought to be politicized.

Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lost over 100 people on September 11. Over 100 people. I went to more funerals than I thought was possible. My district is about 40 miles from where the Twin Towers used to stand. When my constituents go to New York City these days, they can't see the Twin Towers because we had no homeland security in 2001. When they go to New York City, it is without the people that they loved and knew. All they have left are the memories.

Mr. Chairman, what I believe is happening today is that the Members from the other side are dishonoring those memories and, in fact, compromising our homeland security by using this critical bill to keep us safe and sound and strong to score political points on and to delay on.

That is simply not acceptable. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of our homeland security. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of our national security. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of the memory of those who lost their lives on 9/11.

Now, I was in Pakistan just some time ago with the Appropriations Committee. I stood on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and learned that the Taliban is getting stronger, al Qaeda is resurging, Ansar al Islam is getting stronger and Jamah Islamayah is getting better. What is the other side doing over the past 48 hours? Spending 8 hours debating cuts to the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning, plotting, and strategizing our demise; and the other side, Mr. Chairman, is spending 8 hours debating a cut in the costs of the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, forgive me if I sound frustrated. But I don't know how I can go back to my district in New York and explain to my constituents who attended funerals that instead of figuring out how to strengthen our borders, we spent 8 hours debating the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security; that while our enemies are planning to destroy us, the other side offered eight separate motions to rise yesterday; that while our enemies are figuring out how to plan our demise, the other side is figuring out how to delay the response. How can I possibly explain that to the families that I represent?

I don't begrudge the other side their right to debate earmarks. But not on this bill. This is the wrong bill. It is at the wrong time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return all of us to that very dark day. Many of the gentlemen and the gentlewomen who are spending all of this time consumed in a debate over earmarks in a bill that has no earmarks, who are consumed on procedural motions, held hands on 9/11 that night on the steps of this building and pledged never again. We would never let this happen again. We will do what must be done. We will bear any burden and pay any price in the defense of liberty and freedom.

What has happened in the years since then? We are not willing to pay the price. We are not willing to bear the burden. The only burden is that we are going to be here through the weekend debating more motions to rise, more amendments that are nothing but, in my view, political cheap shots.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the time and the place. We need to pass this bill to strengthen America, not compromise America's security.

Rep. Joe Barton [R-TX6]: I move to strike the last word.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Rep. Joe Barton [R-TX6]: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring a little bit of openness to this debate and this process. Those of us on the minority side are not concerned about the overall scope of the Homeland Security bill.

Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers, I think, have done an outstanding job on the substance of the bill. But we are very concerned about the lack of openness and transparency on what are called "earmarks," because the majority party campaigned specifically for openness and transparency on this particular issue, and this is the first appropriation bill, and there is no openness and transparency on earmarks.

So I am going to start a precedent at least for the Sixth Congressional District, which is the district that I represent. I am going to put my earmarks in the Record on this bill. I have two of them.

The first one is for the City of Arlington, Texas. It is a request for $10 million to replace all of the radio equipment and communication equipment for the City of Arlington Police Department so they meet the new Project 25 interoperability requirement. So that is my first earmark. The second earmark is also for the City of Arlington, Texas. It is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.

Now, my very first congressional earmark, way back in 1985, or maybe 1986, was to set up the first anti-drug Narcotics Task Force in Tarrant County.

I went to Jamie Whiten, who was the powerful chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I went to that corner office right off the floor and on trembling knees asked Mr. Whiten for $1 million to have the first anti-drug task force in Tarrant County, Texas, with the main city being Fort Worth in Arlington, Texas, and, lo and behold, I got it. So this request for $2 million is in a sense a continuation, an expansion. That task force has obviously expanded since the mid-1980s, but this is a $2 million request for the Narcotics Task Force.

I have also signed a delegation letter. I won't list every Member who signed it, but in Congressman Edwards' district down in College Station, Texas, Texas A&M is the home of a National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center. I have asked, along with a number of other Members, for an additional $13 million for that national center.

Those are all my earmark requests. Under the new rules, I have to sign a letter, like every other Member, to Mr. Price and to Mr. Rogers stating what my earmark request is, and then I certify that neither myself nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

So I want to put these earmark requests in the record so that at least one Member of Congress is being open and transparent in the process.

I want to say something about the process. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make earmark requests open. But it is disingenuous, to say the least, to campaign on openness and transparency and then not deliver. I happen to think Chairman Obey is doing an outstanding job. It is a tough job being chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Just ask former Chairman Lewis. But to have one Member of Congress responsible for vetting every earmark request, and apparently this year the number is 32,000, which is an average of about 80 per Member, which is an average of about 7 per appropriations bill, that is an impossible task.

Let's come up with some system to put the earmarks in the bills as they come to the floor. Let there be a debate. Some would fall out, some would shift around, but the American people would know what the process is all about.

Mr. Chairman, I include my earmark requests for the Record.

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.

DEAR CHAIRMAN PRICE AND RANKING MEMBER ROGERS: I am requesting funding for the Interoperable Law Enforcement Communications System in fiscal year 2008. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Arlington, located at 101 W. Abram Street, P.O. Box 90231, MS 01-0310, Arlington, TX 76004.

The funding would be used for replacing the Arlington Police Department's local radio system with new equipment which will allow Arlington Police officers to communicate with other agencies.

I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, March 15, 2007.

DEAR CHAIRMAN PRICE AND RANKING MEMBER ROGERS: I am requesting funding for the Narcotics Task Force in fiscal year 2008. The entity to receive funding for this project is the City of Arlington, located at 101 W. Abram Street, P.O. Box 90231, MS 01-0310, Arlington, TX 76004.

The funding would be used to allow the Arlington Police Department to coordinate with HIDTA, the DEA, and regional task forces to conduct focused interdiction initiatives combating drug trafficking in Arlington and the surrounding area.

I certify that neither I nor my spouse has any financial interest in this project.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

Washington, DC, March 16, 2007.

DEAR CHAIRMAN PRICE AND RANKING MEMBER ROGERS: The purpose of this letter is to request funding for the following projects in the FY'08 Homeland Security Appropriations bill under the consideration of your Subcommittee. I have listed the projects in order of greatest priority.

First priority: City of Arlington. Texas: Interoperable Law Enforcement Communications System $10.0M

Any federal funding received will be used for an Interoperable Law Enforcement Communications System. The proposed project would provide the basis for a regional communications system through the acquisition of state-of-the-art technology that adheres to recently drafted federal specifications for interoperability, Project 25. The Project 25 standard allows agencies to purchase communications equipment from any manufacturer and be assured that it is designed to achieve interoperability with other Project 25 compliant systems. It is expected that this amount of funding will be required to completely replace Arlington's communications system with technology that can serve as the backbone for a regional Project 25 compliant system.

Police and other public safety employees rely on an array of wireless voice communications (mobile radios, portable radios, base-stations, cell phones and pagers) to conduct day-to-day activities as well as respond to major emergencies, catastrophic events and disasters, both natural and man-made. Traditionally, most law enforcement agencies and jurisdictions have chosen to finance, install and maintain their own communications systems. As a result, the systems are purchased from different suppliers/manufacturers, operate on different radio frequencies and utilize a broad range of underlying technologies and architectures. The result has been inoperability (or inability to communicate) between jurisdictions.

Problems caused by lack of interoperability are particularly acute during large scale events that necessitate the involvement of personnel from multiple agencies and jurisdictions. This is commonly referred to as "mutual aid" in the public safety profession. Mutual aid events can come about due to unplanned events such as large-scale accidents, natural disaster, civil insurrection/riot, or major crime event or terrorist attack. Mutual aid situations can also be the result of major sporting events, political conventions or large scale celebrations. Regardless of its source, interoperability is critical to an effective response to large scale events and mutual aid situations.

Second priority: City of Arlington, Texas: Narcotics Task Force $2.0M

Any federal funding received will be used to fund a comprehensive, cooperative interdiction program in Arlington, Texas. Funds would be utilized for personal protection equipment for officers who find clandestine labs, surveillance equipment, drug dogs, specialized K-9 vehicles and related equipment, personnel, training, and other related services.

Narcotic trafficking is a multi-jurisdictional problem requiring a task force approach to ensure coordination among numerous law enforcement agencies. The Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit (TCNICU) was formed in 1988 to work these complex narcotics cases. Due to a new requirement that federally-funded narcotics task forces be multi-county as well as multi-agency, the TCNICU expanded to include Ellis County during 2003. Its name was changed to Metro Narcotics Intelligence Coordination Unit (MNICU), and the Department of Public Safety (DPS) now has operational control/oversight of the task force.

This task force is supported through Byrne Funds, funneled through the Governor's Office (Criminal Justice Division). These funds were depleted in March 2006 and no other funding sources have been identified. The City's current agreements with HIDTA and DEA cover only overtime expenses.

Major drug trafficking routes run from Mexico through the Metroplex to other states. The HIDTA Interdiction programs instituted along Interstate 35 have been very successful. Interstate 20, Interstate 30 and State Highway 360 are major thoroughfares in the heart of the Sixth District for drug traffickers transporting their wares to Dallas and Fort Worth and beyond. Additional funding is requested to create a comprehensive program.

Thank you for your kind consideration of these projects. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me or my Legislative Assistant, Aarti Shah

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

March 16, 2007.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to express our strong support for a $13 million increase over last year's funding in the FY 2008 Homeland Security Appropriation Bill for the National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center (NERRTC), a lead member of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (NDPC). NERRTC, established in 1998, is a member of The Texas A&M University System, and is located in College Station, Texas.

The other non-federal members of the NDPC include the Counter Terrorism Operations Support (CTOS) at the Nevada Test Site (NTS); Energetic Materials Research and Training Center (EMRTC) at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology; and National Center for Biomedical Research and Training (NCBRT) at Louisiana State University (LSU). The Consortium coordinates and integrates their training efforts to ensure the optimal use of federal funds appropriated for the purpose of providing a focused, threat responsive, long-term national capability for our emergency responders.

The FY 2007 Appropriations Bill provided $22 million for NERRTC, as part of the $88 million allocation for the four non-federal members of the NDPC. Unfortunately, the President's FY 2008 budget proposes a significant decrease in funding levels for the Consortium, reducing the total allocation for the NDPC to $38 million, to be awarded on a competitive basis. The states would be required to incur training costs to purchase required training that has historically been fully-funded by the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) through the Consortium. The states have received no impetus to purchase the specialized training, which only the Consortium provides.

Under this new training direction for the G&T, responsibility for all three levels of WMD/terrorism training (awareness, performance, and planning/management) will shift from DHS to local jurisdictions. This shift would result in the loss of uniform training standards and the certified training programs that have been developed. Additionally, given the proposed changes in FY 2008 funding for the State Formula Grant Program, the new training strategy could impact the states' ability to meet needed training requirements.

We strongly believe that the current training strategy, which has been successfully implemented by G&T through the Consortium for the past nine years, continues to be an effective tool for our nation. To date, NERRTC has trained in every State and U.S. Territory, reaching more than 7,400 jurisdictions and over 204,000 participants. The entire Consortium has trained over 700,000 emergency responders through a nationally validated curriculum. This model has reached all disciplines necessary for national preparedness, including fire, law enforcement, EMS, hazardous materials, public works, public health, emergency managers and senior officials. The model is effective and provides for consistency in standards and curriculum.

The national demand for NERRTC specialized training programs, as well as the specialized training programs provided by the other members of the Consortium, continues to grow at a rapid pace. For FY 2008, $35 million is requested to increase current support to G&T and program delivery, to meet the documented national needs and requests from states, to expand training deliveries to our local and state emergency responders.

We appreciate your consideration of this critical national project and its significant contributions to enhancing our homeland security.

Sincerely,

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to Mr. McHenry any time that I have remaining.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, the important part here is that we say very clearly to the American people that we should know where the dollars and cents that our Federal taxpayers are funding for their government is going. That includes the important programs of this government. But it very much is important to the American people to give scrutiny to these pork-barrel projects and earmarks contained within these billion-dollar bills. The bill before us today is $36 billion in spending. I think it is worthy and worthwhile that we spend a little time giving this legislation scrutiny.

Rep. John Kline [R-MN2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a fascinating debate. I have heard, unfortunately, some language that I certainly find offensive, that we are dishonoring, for example, those who have died in this country. I certainly don't believe that is the case. I don't understand how our insistence on making sure that we are appropriating the taxpayers' dollars responsibly dishonors anyone.

Repeatedly I have heard that in this bill there are no earmarks. Again, I would reiterate, that is the point. We simply don't know if that is the case. The gentleman from Texas just stood down here and said he has requests for two earmarks in this bill. I don't know how many earmarks will end up at the end of the process, and, frankly, none of us do, because there is no transparency and we do not have visibility into this very, very flawed system for Members' projects for earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, I know that my dear friend and colleague from North Carolina would like the opportunity to talk about his amendment and this process once again, so I would be happy to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.

Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have a serious discussion here on the floor today, as we did yesterday. There have been some accusations about what we did when we were in the majority. But, look, let's face it, there is a new majority. There is a new regime in town. They called for a new direction. I guess there is a new direction. Congress' approval ratings are the lowest they have been in decades.

Nothing has been achieved in this Congress. In fact, the Democrats' agenda, the Six for 06, the vaunted Six for 06 agenda, has been Zero in 06. Zero of these bills have been enacted into law.

So it is wonderful for the Democrats to point at the Republicans. But, let's face it, the Democrats are in the majority, and it is their obligation to govern, and they have not yet done it.

They spent 133 days in power, the new Democrat majority, and what have they done? Well, they had a lot of debate about whether or not to defund the troops who are in harm's way. They played politics with the troops. But yet they didn't take any time at all to review the earmarks in this bill. They have had 133 days. The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has had 133 days to review these earmarks, but yet he will not open it up to public scrutiny.

All we are asking for these earmarks and for this Democrat excessive spending is for it to see the light of day so the American people can see what their money is going towards. So while they play politics with funding the troops, they do nothing when it comes to pork-barrel spending. They do nothing when it comes to earmarks. They do nothing to control spending. They do nothing to enact their vaunted Six for 06 agenda.

Mr. Chairman, I think the American people need to understand what this new Democrat majority, this new direction, is all about. It is about politics. It is about politics. And what we are talking about here today, what Republicans and conservatives are saying is that we need to have those earmarks laid out for public scrutiny so the press and Members of this body can actually see what the chairman wants to insert at the 11th hour in this legislation. We want to see what is in that slush fund within this bill. We want to see where our tax dollars are going. But we also want to spend. Beyond that, we want to make sure this money is appropriated wisely.

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

And where is that money, that slush fund, going? I think the American people, not just my colleagues in the House, not just the committee chairmen, not just a committee, but all the American people deserve to see where their money is going. That's the right thing.

That's what we're debating about here today and what we were debating about last night. And while the Democrats forced us to go into 2:00 a.m. voting on this House floor, in the middle of the night, voting on important matters of public policy, the Speaker sleeps. While we were forced to stay here until 2:00 a.m., voting on procedural motions to hold the Democrats accountable, the Speaker slept.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate my good friend from North Carolina. We've been out here a bunch together. First, he says, well, this is politics. This is not politics. This is governing, something you on the other side know very, very little about.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair.

Chair: The gentleman is correct.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side were saying that this is about politics, and I would like to say that this is not about politics. This is about governing, Mr. Chairman, something the Republicans in Congress know very, very little about.

Now, we have heard lectures today about spending too much money. $4 trillion under the Republican watch, Mr. Chairman, borrowed from China, Japan and OPEC countries with a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican President. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Republicans will spare us the lectures on fiscal responsibility.

And then, Mr. Chairman, they start saying that, well, you're spending it, but you're not spending it right. You can spare us the lectures on spending. Need we bring up Katrina, need we bring up Iraq, Mr. Chairman? We don't really need lectures from the most blatantly irresponsible spending Congress in the history of this illustrious body.

Now, the Homeland Security Department was created by the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman. They ran on it. They ran campaigns against Max Cleland on it. They created it. And so now they're saying that if we actually fund it to protect the country, that somehow we're doing something wrong. That's what you do with programs that work; you fund them.

And now more to the point of what I think the real substance of this argument is really all about: The National Intelligence Estimate said that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists around the globe. That means, Mr. Chairman, that there are more terrorists out there now than there were before, and they're all coming to get us here in the United States. President Bush even says all the time, You know, if we don't fight 'em over there, they're going to come over here and get us.

So what we're trying to do in this bill is to protect the homeland. We're trying to protect against all those terrorists that have been created in the last 5 years, that have joined al Qaeda and all of these other groups that now want to come over here. We're trying to actually protect the homeland.

So we want to secure the ports. We want to make sure we have the first responders. You're impeding progress with the shenanigans that have been going on here the last 24 hours.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: I will not yield.

The problem with this is that God forbid something does happen in this country. Every minute that we waste here is 1 more minute that the terrorists get to attack this country without the proper port security, without the proper border security.

So as you delay and you move to rise and you move to adjourn--

Chair: The gentleman will address his remarks to the Chair.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Mr. Chairman, as the Republicans move to rise, as they move to adjourn, as they try to filibuster, that is just buying time for these programs not to get implemented. And God forbid the American people, after another attack, come to us and say, what were you doing? Why didn't you have the technology on the ports? The Republicans are going to have to go back home to their district and say, we were filibustering this bill.

Rep. Tom Price [R-GA6]: Will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: I will not yield. You guys have had the floor for 24 hours. You could let us say a few words.

The bottom line is this: The new Democratic Congress has fulfilled the promises that we have made, Mr. Chairman. Passed the minimum wage, cut student loan interest rates in half, security issues. When you look at the budgets that we have passed, the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA to take care of those soldiers who are out there, a $500 to $600 increase in the Pell Grant, fully funding Head Start, SCHIP, Even Start, after-school programs, investment in alternative energy sources.

If I was you, I wouldn't want our bills to pass either, because when these pass and we take it to the American people, Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side are going to wish they would have had the level of competence that the Democrats have.

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

I come to the floor because of the inspiration of the ranking member of my committee, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who came and disclosed for the body the earmarks that he had in the bill. I would like to take this opportunity to disclose the earmarks that I have in the homeland security bill as reported to me by my staff. The number is zero.

But, still, the argument that goes on here today is important. We just heard a scholarly discussion about the budget that was passed by the new majority. The reality is, a lot of those fully funding issues are in what are called "reserve funds." The gentleman mentioned specifically SCHIP. We have been working on that in my committee for months now. I will tell you, the funds are not there. The reserve funds are sort of like sending a get-well card to a Federal program that is going to expire on September 30 of this year because we have not yet done the work to extend it.

Mr. Chairman, I also feel obligated to point out that certainly there are many times during the last 4 years that I have been here, again as just a simple country doctor who came to Congress, but there have been many times that I have been here that I have felt that our side was spending too much money. However many times I felt that way, I cannot escape the feeling that now we are fixing to spend that and a great deal more, and that does sadden me.

I think, more to the point, the bill that is under discussion today is a bill that is extremely important to this country, and I think it is a shame that a new majority that campaigned on the concept of openness and being transparent about the process now has decided that there is value in opacity and intends to obscure the process as much as they possibly can.

It is one thing to decide that that is the correct way to govern, but don't campaign on that issue. Don't promise what you can't deliver. If you cannot be open about your method of governing, then please don't run on that as an issue in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I would now like to yield as much time as I have remaining to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: I appreciate my colleague from Texas for yielding.

I want to respond to my colleague and friend from Ohio. He does a wonderful job at oratory. His facts are a little off, Mr. Chairman, I must say. He forgot in his list of these wonderful things the Democrat Congress has done, because, let's face it, it is a nice long list of things that they have said that they would do. Actually, they haven't implemented many of the things that he claims, Mr. Chairman. The one thing on his list he forgets, though, is the largest tax increase in American history. I don't know why he doesn't brag about that.

But he actually points out something that is very important to realize. The Democrats have done part of what they've said. They campaigned on increasing the size and scope of government, Mr. Chairman, and they've done that. They're working to do that.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: In just a second. In just a moment.

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: The gentleman from Texas controls the time and, no, he will not yield.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: No, I will not.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Let me just say this. The largest tax increase in American history, that is really the backdrop of these spending bills.

The gentleman points out an interesting quandary, I must say. He says that Republicans are delaying the implementation of homeland security funding. The Department is funded through October 1. Beyond that, if it were important for us to put our priorities first, we would start, Mr. Chairman, with the Department of Defense, for national defense purposes. Instead, he's pulling a political game on us, Mr. Chairman, to simply say that we are harming national security because we're trying to restrain pork-barrel spending within this appropriation.

He actually points out a very important thing the American people need to understand. If the Democrats wanted to focus on priorities, we would have started with homeland security and national defense on day one. Instead, the new Democrat majority played politics with our troops in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. They played politics with that funding, Mr. Chairman. They played politics for 100 days. And they're continuing to play politics with the funding for our troops in harm's way, Mr. Chairman. And we should oppose that.

And the American people are reacting to that. They don't want to defund our troops in harm's way. They don't want to do that.

I would ask my colleague from Texas, to, if he would, yield for 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio for his comment or question, because that is much more generous than he did earlier. And I would love to respond to what he says or claims.

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: In fact, I will be happy to yield, but let me just reclaim my time for a moment.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burgess was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: I have no earmark in this bill, but had I had an earmark in this bill, I would have had to submit that the middle of March, 3 months ago.

As the gentleman from North Carolina so correctly points out, this is not new information. This information has been percolating somewhere within the committee for the last 3 months' time.

Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. The reason the gentleman from Texas doesn't have an earmark in this bill is because there are no earmarks in this bill.

Rep. Michael Burgess [R-TX26]: Reclaiming my time, the ranking member of my committee came to the floor and said he had two earmarks in the bill. So I submit to you that there are earmarks in the bill, and we should be discussing that; that should be part of the new open and transparent Congress.

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH17]: Just to clarify. The ranking member submitted earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill. That's a clear difference.

I ask my friend from North Carolina, what do you want to cut out of this bill? The Border Patrol? The 3,000 Border Patrol agents? Do you want to get rid of the technology that we're going to have on the ports to scan cargo coming in? Is that what you want to cut? Do you want to cut the money that we're giving to our first responders?

Mr. Chairman, exactly what is it that you don't like about this bill? There are no earmarks and we're funding programs that are going to protect the homeland.

Now, we understand clearly, Mr. Chairman, that our friends on the other side have had a difficult time governing the country. That doesn't mean they have to impede us from doing it.

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]: Mr. Chairman, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill addresses not only the threat of terrorist activity, but funding for States and communities to confront the threat and real consequences of natural disasters and emergency situations.

Hurricane Katrina was one disaster. The response of the Federal Government to Katrina was another disaster. While the world watched, our citizens were left to fend for themselves. I live in a city that sits at the epicenter of the New Madrid fault zone. Historically, this area has been the site of some of the largest earthquakes in North America. Scientists believe we could be overdue for a large earthquake and through research and public awareness may be able to prevent terrible losses of life and property.

Also, Memphis is built on the banks of the Mississippi, and as every river town knows, we must be vigilant to ensure that the river remains our friend. And Tennessee is one of the States most frequently hit with tornadoes and destructive straight-line winds.

I am pleased to support the Homeland Security Appropriations bill because it provides for the needs of our citizens to ensure that their government will be vigilant in protecting them not only from terrorists, imagined and real, but by preparing for emergencies and being there in the aftermath of disasters. We don't need to just say, there's been a "heckuva job" done, but we need to make sure that the job is done.

Mr. Chairman, we were here until 2 o'clock this morning because of dilatory moves on the other side. We need to come together and pass a homeland security bill that protects our cities and our States from natural disasters and protects our country from terrorists, imagined and real. This is a bill we need to pass for America and make America proud of this United States Congress.

Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, part of our process in this country as a Republic and one reason we broke away from a monarchy was because of the fact that Americans, by nature, want things in the public view.

Back in the days of the king, the king made all of the decisions and he made them based on any reason or lack of reason the king wished.

Americans want their government to be public. That's why this House meets in public instead of in a back room someplace, because when you meet in back rooms, things seem to happen that are not in the favor or the benefit of the public or the American people.

And in this whole appropriations process, the American public is watching us and we are being asked to appropriate billions of dollars for different projects, appropriations bills; but yet we don't know where the money is going. Now, most Americans probably would find that difficult to understand. I find that difficult to understand. Why you would ever appropriate taxpayer money, set it out here in some fund, you can call it a slush fund or a sludge fund it makes no difference. We don't know where the money is going. We are being told trust us, we are the government; we will decide later how to spend your money. Trust us.

And how is that decision going to be made? It is going to be made really by one person and his staff, a good person no doubt, but will that decision be made upon partisan politics, how these false, fake, secret earmarks are going to be determined? Will it be based upon longevity in the House? Will it be based upon where a person happens to live in the United States? Will it be based upon other factors that are subjective as opposed to objective? Who knows. We don't know because we don't know, first of all, where the money is going and how those decisions will be made.

But we are all asked in this House, including those on the other side, to write a letter and ask for one earmark, and then that letter will be reviewed by the staff. And the staff will meet with the one Member of Congress and the decision will be made whether to grant or not grant that earmark.

It seems to me that one person should not have that ability, that authority, that power. It goes back to the phrase from Orwell's "Animal Farm" that all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. And this is probably one of those examples.

So why not be open about it? Why not be democratic about it and air those public earmarks in the public sector. Let's argue and debate them on the House floor. Let's vote them up, let's vote them down, but let the American people see exactly what those earmarks are and then they can see where we stand and see how we vote as 435 as opposed to one person.

So deals made in back rooms are not good deals for the American public. All we are asking in this legislative body is that we take the taxpayers' money and we tell them up front where that money is going to be spent before we take it away from the taxpayers and say trust us, we are from the Federal Government, we are here to help you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to Judge Carter.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

This has been a stimulating debate, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for joining in this debate. Yesterday evening we were accused of delaying and taking up all of the time, and I think we have equally shared the time this morning, and I am very proud to have the help of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle in continuing this debate because I think it is important that we hear from all sides. In fact, that is what this is all about.

We keep talking about us, but I think that the Democratic Representatives on the other side of the aisle individually have the same right to see and debate these earmarks as the people on the Republican side of the aisle. I am not arguing this point only for Republicans. I believe that the individual Members who are elected by the people in their district to make sure they are on top of spending have the same right.

Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX29]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing because a lot of us sat here last night until 2 in the morning and watched the Republican minority file motion after motion for us to rise so we wouldn't take up a Homeland Security bill that has no earmarks.

What they did was slow us down on trying to have a bill passed by October 1, which they have had trouble when they were 12 years in the majority. That is why we had to live under continuing resolutions, and continue to live under one because of their governance last year.

The Homeland Security bill has 300 new Border Patrol agents. It would be nice on October 1 if this bill was signed into law so we would have those Border Patrol agents on the border, in our airports and in our ports.

They are delaying the planning for the first responders, whether in the city of Houston where I come from, or the State of Texas where my three colleagues who spoke earlier on how bad earmarks were, or the bill provides protection from explosive systems for our airports, including Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

This is delaying $400 million for port security, including the Port of Houston, the number one foreign-tonnage port. We are doing some great things in the Port of Houston. It is because we put the community together, the business community and all government agencies, Republican and Democrats. I wish we could see that in Washington. But we didn't see that last night. We saw delay after delay in not taking up this bill. So we are putting it off so they can make a point of how bad earmarks are.

But the House Republicans don't want to talk about those issues. They want to talk about how they want to bring the light of day into earmarks. Well, for 12 years they didn't want the light of day in earmarks. They were the king. They were the emperor of earmarks. I have watched for many years what happened over those 12 years with the earmarks and the ones that were shut out in the minority.

I think what they are concerned about is that we may do to them what they did to the Democrats for 12 years, but that is not our intent. All we want is to be able to see them, the public.

I have requested earmarks, and I am proud to say I have received them for our district. I don't mind publicizing them. In fact, I will do it in any manner required, instead of airdropping them in like they previously did in the appropriations bills.

I think that conversion we saw, maybe it started with the November election, but we are seeing it now, that conversion is almost as amazing as Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, from Saul being a persecutor of Christians to becoming Paul, the Lord works in mysterious ways; but I don't think it is so mysterious. I think what we are seeing is after 12 years of being dictators in this House, now they are afraid the same rules are going to be used against them.

For 3 years, I have requested $250,000 in an earmark for a prenatal machine to treat mothers, poor mothers, to be able to get a new piece of equipment so we can do prenatal planning. $250,000. Health and Human Services has stripped out Democratic earmarks for a number of years. I don't intend to do that. I am not an appropriator, but I hope our Appropriations Committee doesn't do that. I am not ashamed to say that I asked for that earmark again this year for that prenatal machine.

Or for $250,000 for a diabetes program in Harris County to help what our local community is doing. I have asked for $250,000 for immunizations. The reason we have earmarks is that I don't want to appropriate all that money and send to Health and Human Services, and say, by the way, I sure would like you to help diabetes and immunizations in Harris County in Houston, Texas. Or maybe help pay for part of a machine for prenatal care.

Mr. Chairman, do I still control the time on the floor of the House?

Chair: The gentleman from Texas has the time.

Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX29]: It is my understanding that Members cannot rise while other Members have the floor of the House.

Chair: A Member may seek to be yielded to. The gentleman from Texas may continue.

Rep. Raymond Green [D-TX29]: Mr. Chairman, we all have to obey the rules, whether Republican or Democrat; and that is what we are trying to say. We want to pass the appropriations bills before October 1. In the majority for 12 years, they couldn't do it. They put in earmarks all over the appropriations process, and yet stripped out Democrats. I don't want us to do that, but I do want us to have some legislative ability to say we have projects in our district that are important. If I am willing to say, yes, I want them and I will publicize them, then why shouldn't we be able to have an elected official make that decision instead of the bureaucracy that may still be under the President. But the now Republican minority put earmarks in even when they were in the majority, so that is what this debate is about.

They don't want us to pass these bills but we need to do it for the American people, particularly Homeland Security.

Rep. John Doolittle [R-CA4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman, and I think he had some good points to make, but I do just want to point out that under the Republicans, the Democrat minority was allowed to determine which of their projects got funded. If Democrat projects were stripped out, it wasn't done by the Republicans; it was done by the Democrats on the leadership in the Appropriations Committee. I think this is important to understand. We didn't interfere with what Democrat priorities were, as I understand it. You got a certain percentage and were able to determine your own priorities.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, I think he may be blaming us for something that we didn't do.

Now, I am not here to lead a crusade against earmarks. The Constitution clearly specifies that the legislative branch is in control of spending for the government. We are entitled to set our priorities, and we would not be doing our jobs as Representatives if we did not indeed set those priorities.

I do want to note with some of the things that have been said, in the final year of Republican control of the United States Congress, we cut nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in 19 years. The hardest thing we ever have done in Congress, you or we have done, is to cut spending. It is very, very difficult.

Having said that, last year we actually accomplished it, and nobody knew it so I am going to say it here again today: the first time in 19 years, through the leadership of Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations Committee, we cut nondefense discretionary spending, the first time in 19 years.

We did not cut mandatory spending, but we worked hard to slow the growth curve, and we did that. Mandatory spending, by the way, is where two-thirds of all spending actually occurs. And for the first time in 9 years, we slowed the growth of mandatory spending. Those are two huge accomplishments. I hope that the Democrat majority in the time they have will be able to show a similar accomplishment. I am not encouraged so far by what I see. I think with all of their rhetoric about openness and transparency and curbing earmarks, it bodes very ill, despite that rhetoric, in trying to tar and feather the Republicans with these slanderous statements that they have, indeed, overturned their own process and they are going to airdrop in the earmarks in the conference committee.

Yes, it has been asserted there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill. That is right, but there will be, and they will be in this bill in the conference report where all we can do is vote "yes" or "no," no chance to amend or affect the process. That goes completely against what the majority party asserted would be their policy. And we have to keep calling attention to this to have the world understand what is going on here. This is fundamental to the consideration of all the other appropriations bills. We have to get this process established.

They ran their campaigns last November on the idea that the earmarks are going to be open and accountable, and the first thing they did was to go way back in time and do something where they are completely shielded from public view until the last minute when they get dropped in. That is wrong. We will not accept that, and we will not go easily into that good night until and unless you reform that policy. It is completely unacceptable to campaign about openness and transparency for earmarks, and then to go in exactly the opposite direction, have no openness and no transparency and no accountability.

That is very, very wrong, and I hope that people will clearly see that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I have to Mr. McHenry, if he would care to offer any additional insights.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California, to reiterate my earlier point, which is, we need to lay clear these earmarks. We need to know what they are in the legislation so that the American people can judge for themselves the worthiness of the programs and the money allocated for them.

Now, we just want a clear, open, transparent process which is what the new majority, what the new Speaker campaigned upon.

Now, we had this long debate last night after 10 o'clock. We went on for hours and hours and hours about this process until after 2 in the morning. Now, I understand the Speaker went home to sleep and the rest of us sat here and debated, but that's a whole other issue. If the Speaker had been here, Mr. Chairman, they would know that this is an important debate for the American people to hear.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords [D-AZ8]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to really focus on the substance of this bill, and I rise today in strong support of this Homeland Security bill.

I represent southern Arizona. My district, the 8th Congressional District, shares 120 miles with the country of Mexico. We are facing a security and immigration crisis in my district and across the Nation. The flood of illegal immigrants and drug trafficking continues to place an undue burden on not just our health care system but our schools, our first responders and on our local law enforcement.

Currently, the Tucson sector is the most porous section along the U.S.-Mexico border. On average, every day the Border Patrol apprehends about 2,000 illegal immigrants and approximately 2,500 pounds of drugs. While most illegal immigrants are coming here for economic opportunities and don't want to do harm to anyone, probably about 10 percent are involved in criminal activities.

Nationally, the Border Patrol arrests 1 million illegal immigrants annually and seizes over 1 million pounds of marijuana and 15 to 20 tons of cocaine.

Smugglers' methods, routes and modes of transportation are potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited by terrorists attempting to do the American people harm.

Border security must be strengthened, and all of the options for accomplishing this must be on the table. Success requires a multifaceted approach. We need to build fences, we need to deploy sensors, we need to utilize the latest technologies, such as UAVs, and take advantage of advanced technology in terms of detection.

I'm pleased that this legislation makes border security a priority and provides the funding that we badly need along the U.S.-Mexico border. The improved border security that this bill will fund is a crucial component in passing comprehensive immigration reform that is tough, practical and effective. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation later that includes components of border security, along with comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, the bill that we are discussing today provides $8.8 billion for the Customs and Border Protection agency, which is $50 million above the President's request, and $647 million, nearly 8 percent, above fiscal year 2007. It provides funding for 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and this will bring the total number of Border Patrol agents up to 17,819 by the end of fiscal year 2008.

This bill also funds the SBI, the Secure Border Initiative. This is going to be rolling out in Sasabe in southern Arizona, and it funds this initiative at the President's requested level of $1 billion. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders.

So I urge my colleagues to pass and I urge the President to sign this very important legislation. Our border communities urgently need this funding to stem violence and lawlessness and prevent terrorism that could possibly impact the United States along the southern border.

I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this legislation.

Rep. John Campbell [R-CA48]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

This debate that began yesterday and continues today is really about two things. One thing we've heard a lot about here recently in the last few speeches that people have given is whether or not the majority party wants to have earmark spending that is secret and that is not subject to individual vote. We believe that such spending ought not to be secret and ought to be subject to an individual vote. That's one thing.

But there is another thing, and that is that this bill simply spends too much. This bill has an increase in it, and I know the gentleman from North Carolina and I had a discussion on this yesterday. Let's just talk about the nonemergency spending.

This bill increases spending from year to year by 13.6 percent. Again, that is a lot. It is a lot more than inflation, which has been running under 3 percent. It is a lot more than most people see as an increase in their salaries. Why, in fact, if someone out there listening, Mr. Chairman, makes $15 an hour, if they were to get a similar increase this year, they would make over $17 an hour next year. I mean, most people out there making $15 an hour would love an increase to $17 an hour, but they're probably not going to get a $2 increase, but yet this bill proposes to expand the spending by 13.6 percent.

Now, people on the other side of the aisle, Democrats that continually criticize our amendments and the things we're talking about by saying that we are cutting spending, the two amendments before us right now and the previous amendments we voted on last night and most of the amendments, if not all, that we're going to see later, are not cutting anything. They are slowing the growth. If you get $1 a month and somebody gives you $2 a month, that's an increase; it's not a cut. But they keep saying cut on the other side of the aisle so much that I believe perhaps a little visual assistance is required.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this very, very clear. One equals one. If you are getting $1 and you still get $1, that is not a cut. That's the same amount of money that you had before. Two is actually more than one. So that if you were getting $1 and now you get $2, that also is not a cut, even if you wanted $3. Because what Members on the Democratic side of the aisle continue to say is, oh, we're getting one, we want three, you're only going to give us two and so, therefore, it's a cut. No, it is not. One equals one, two is more than one, regardless of what you want.

Mr. Rogers will propose an amendment later that has already been described by the other side as a massive cut, except it will leave a 7 percent increase, I believe, roughly, in spending in this bill. A 7 percent increase from year to year is not a cut.

The amendment that is before us right now, Mr. McHenry's amendment, proposes to spend less money than the bill before us on the Secretary's bureaucratic operation, but it actually allows the Secretary's bureaucrats to spend more than they spent last year. That, again, is not a cut.

So, Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear here that Republicans are not proposing to cut this bill. We are not proposing to cut spending in the Department of Homeland Security. We are proposing to increase it at a rate which is sustainable because if you continue to increase things at 13.6 percent a year, then that requires that everyone out there who's making that $15 an hour get a raise to $17 and give it all to the government in order to keep paying for this sort of increase. American taxpayers cannot afford that kind of increase after increase after increase.

Rep. Barney Frank [D-MA4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I agree we should be debating substantively whether or not we have reached perfection in the amount of resources we have put to homeland security, and if Members on the other side think that no additional funding for homeland security is necessary, no additional border guards, no additional funding for immigration, that's their right.

If they have so little confidence in Secretary Chertoff and the other appointees of the Bush administration to decide what they need to administer their responsibilities, that's their right. In the Senate, they call it "a vote of no confidence" formally. Here the vote of no confidence in Secretary Chertoff will be the constantly repeated phrase, "those bureaucrats," and apparently Members do not have any confidence in the appointees of the Bush administration. That's their right.

What they don't have a right to do, it seems to me, is to totally forget history. Now, we are told, and I guess I should express my admiration for so many Republicans who are fighting for the rights of others. In our society, people fight for their own rights, but we genuinely honor people who fight for the rights of others, people who are not themselves victims, but fight to protect others who have been victimized.

Well, a number of the Republicans are in that category. They are fighting very hard for the right to vote against earmarks. What's interesting is that many of the Republicans who over these past couple of days have been fighting for the right to vote against earmarks always vote for earmarks, and I don't just mean in overall bills.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) took the floor and acknowledged that he had offered 39 amendments in the last Congress to cut out earmarks and he lost 39 times. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted 39 times against the gentleman from Arizona. So we have Republicans yesterday, and I will have the Record and we'll have the rollcall, we will have people who said you must give me the right to vote against these earmarks who then never voted against a single earmark. And that is admirable.

It is admirable when you, yourself, have no intention of voting against earmarks when, in fact, you are 39 for 39 in voting to keep earmarks in the bill. And by the way, one might think the gentleman from Arizona is irrational. I do not. I voted with him on a number of occasions, not the majority, but I voted with him on some.

The gentleman from Arizona is a careful Member. He selected the most, to him, outrageous earmarks, and we have Republicans who voted for all 39 outrageous earmarks, according to the gentleman from Arizona. The great majority of the Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to reject the earmarks that, of course, their appropriations colleagues had put in the bill.

So, Mr. Chairman, is that not admirable, Members who got up here and said, How dare you not let us vote against earmarks, when they themselves had no intention of doing that? This is the vegetarians rushing forward to defend the slaughter of beef cattle. This is atheists insisting that people be given a religious day of worship.

This is a very, very impressive display of concern for the others. These are people who themselves apparently intend to vote for every earmark that comes down the pike. They never met an earmark they didn't like, because if the gentleman from Arizona has done all of his careful research, and he's presented 39 earmarks that he thinks are particularly egregious and Members have voted against him on every one and have voted to keep all 39 earmarks, they've never met an earmark they didn't like.

So their insistence on delaying this bill and repeating arguments. I must say I was here all night last night. I walked in and I don't object to dilatory tactics. I object to excruciatingly boring dilatory tactics. I must say, Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side are the least imaginative filibusterers I've ever seen. They just repeat themselves and repeat themselves, and stuff that was uninteresting and flat in the first place does not improve with age.

But whatever their tactics, understand they are employing them on behalf of the right of the others to vote against earmarks because it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Republicans have no intention of voting against earmarks, at least not based on the record. They not only voted for bills with earmarks, the gentlewoman from North Carolina acknowledged that earmarks had increased from 1,500 to 15,000 under Republicans, but then, of the 15,000 earmarks, when one of our most diligent Members, the gentleman from Arizona, proposes to kill 39 of the earmarks, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against him 39 times.

So, for that dedication to preserving a right that they themselves have no interest in exercising, I give them credit, for very little else, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the folks on our side, we certainly care about the security of the United States, we care about the security of the homeland, but we also care about how the tax dollars of American families are spent.

The previous speaker talked about the right to vote on earmarks and how some of those people are going to vote for these earmarks. But it's not just about the right to vote on earmarks. It's about the right of American families and American citizens to see what those earmarks are that their elected officials may vote for or against.

I guess I look at this in this light, to paraphrase the line from the movie, "show me the earmarks." Show me the earmarks. Because when you see the earmarks, then you are going to see where the money is going. That's what the American people want to know. We have talked about the term transparency a lot in this debate, because the reason it's so important is the lack of transparency inevitably leads to more spending.

That's just the way it works. We have got to know what's going on. If we don't, more spending is going to occur. If you don't take my word for it, look at the numbers. This bill increases spending 13.6 percent. It's spending that always drives. Spending is the problem. We hear the term, the old cliche with politicians, tax-and-spend politicians. It's really the opposite. It's really the opposite. It's spend-and-tax politicians. Spending drives the equation.

If you think about this, the spending contained in this bill, in the budget we passed that was passed a few weeks back, that spending inevitably will lead to higher taxes. Every single good tax cut that has been put in place over the last 6 years, under the Democrat spending plan, is going to go up, money that would be in the pockets of families to spend on their kids, their goals, their dreams, things that their kids care about, things that their family cares about, their business to reinvest it there. All those things that they would like to spend their money on, those taxes will go up, take money from the hardworking family of this country and give it to government. That's what we are talking about.

That's why we are talking about some of these issues. We want you to show me the earmarks, show us what's there so we can see where ultimately the spending will go and the American people, more importantly, can ultimately see that.

I am reminded of a debate that I had back in my days of the State House. There was a tax increase that was moving through our assembly, I was opposed to it, and I remember a reporter coming up to me and saying Jordan, you are so opposed to this tax increase, you think it's so bad for families and taxpayers across the State of Ohio, he said. But where's the outcry? Where are those families storming the State House to talk about this huge tax increase that you are fighting against?

I said, you know, they're too busy working to pay those taxes to storm the State House. That's the truth. We have got to remember the families out there who have been working hard, making their businesses succeed, making their families reach their goals and dreams they've set. We have got to remember those as we go through this debate.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina who is, I know, the sponsor of the second amendment.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: I thank my friend and colleague from Ohio. This is about whether or not to restrain the growth of government. This is about ensuring the integrity of taxpayer money in this process. It's about ensuring that we know where our taxpayer dollars are going and that there is public scrutiny to that, not just scrutiny from a narrow few in this body.

But while the Speaker slept last night, we were working on the floor to bring this issue to the American people. While the Speaker slept, we made the case to the American people that this is an important debate to restrain the growth of government, even within the Department of Homeland Security's bureaucracy.

We want to make sure the taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. This is a healthy debate, because we on this side of the aisle want to restrain the growth of government while those on the other side want to grow and grow and grow the government in all the bureaucracy, especially here in Washington D.C.

It's very important. It's very important for us to engage in this dialogue and debate, for the American people to have scrutiny over this process and through this process. While the Speaker slept last night, we worked till 2 in the morning, till past 2 in the morning, to make sure the American people knew what this new majority, what this new direction was all about.

Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH4]: I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work.

Rep. Silvestre Reyes [D-TX16]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in deference to the comments of the last speaker, I think the American people know what's going on here. They know that almost 6 years after 9/11 and over 5 of those years during the time that they controlled this Congress, they couldn't do what we have been able to do with this funding for Homeland Security. They couldn't do it, or they wouldn't do it.

But either way, Homeland Security funding is vitally important.

Why? It's important because it sends a strong, clear message to all the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection officers, that serve us, serve us well, valiantly around the clock, that we think their work is important.

Last summer, in August, we had a series of hearings. I went to, I think, five or six of those hearings where a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were present as well.

They talked about doing everything that was possible to secure our country's borders. They talked about supporting the Customs and Border Protection officers. They talked about providing them the tools and the weapons and the technology, all the kinds of things that sounded really good.

Yesterday and today, they're singing a different tune. They're talking about stalling. Every minute that we talk about silly things, we aren't talking about serious problems, that demand serious efforts, serious problems that demand serious solutions.

At the very minimum, serious problems that demand serious debate. We don't need Members citing "Animal Farm," which, that's all well and good to make a point, but the American people know that instead of an animal farm, this is a body of a ship of fools here.

We don't need cute and silly things like one is one and two is more than one, because it insults the very people that they profess to support, the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. By the way, every minute that we take doing these kinds of silly things here, professing to want to debate seriously, we also take time away from the largest increase ever for veterans funding, which is the next bill that's waiting to be taken up here on the floor of the House.

Again, 5 years after 9/11, they couldn't do it, they wouldn't do it. Now they've decided that they're not going to let us follow through on the hollow promises that they had made for 5 1/2 years after 9/11.

These are serious issues that we have an obligation seriously to solve, an obligation that we owe, not just the American people, but the employees of the Department of Homeland Security.

I spent 26 1/2 years serving this Nation proudly on the border. I know the integrity. I know the hard work. I know the dedication that the employees of the Department of Homeland Security give each and every day.

They are, or they should be, respected and are not being respected by the kind of silly debate that has been going on here from Members of the other side of the aisle. I think they deserve better, I think our country deserves better, I think we all deserve better when we reflect that this is the people's House. We deserve better than that kind of silly debate.

I believe that it's important that we return to a process, the regular order of continuing to debate this funding for a very important agency 6 years after 9/11.

Let's get to the business that we were sent here to do. People put their faith and trust in us. Let's not betray that faith and trust. Let's do our job.

Rep. Adam Schiff [D-CA29]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make, essentially, two points. First, my friends in the minority lack credibility on the issue they have raised last night and today; and, second, this bill is far too important to be stalled, delayed, put off by blatantly partisan tactics.

On the first point, why does the minority party lack credibility on this issue? Well, one of the two parties during the last 6 years took the largest surpluses, I think we have had in history, and managed to turn those surpluses into deficits, a multitrillion dollar turnaround that was accomplished in a record short time. That party was the party of my friends in the GOP. That's the same party today that is arguing for fiscal responsibility.

One of the two parties presided over the greatest growth and expansion and acceleration and abuse of the earmarking process in history, brought that process to a point where it accounted for more earmarks and more dollars than ever before. That party was also the GOP.

One of the parties in this House presided over a period that resulted in more indictments of Members, more investigations of Members, more appearance of impropriety than any time since ABSCAM or Watergate. That party was the Republican Party.

That same party that abused the earmark process, that had no earmark transparency is now objecting to what? It is now objecting to an earmark process that is better, that is more transparent than it has ever been. That party is objecting to the work of the majority which eliminated all earmarks in last year's bill.

So here you have a party that has demonstrated over the last 5 or 6 years utter fiscal irresponsibility, a lack of willingness to reform the earmark process, now complaining that, okay, the Democrats are reforming the process, they are making it more transparent, but we are complaining because we think they should take it much farther.

Well, I think the last 6 years demonstrated a lack of credibility, a serious lack of credibility among my friends in the minority party.

Why is this bill so important? Why is this bill essential to move forward, and why are these partisan stalling tactics so questionable?

This is the bill that provides the resources to defend our country. I am just going to focus on one because there are numerable areas of this bill that are so vital. But if you go back 5 or 6 years ago when President Bush and Senator Kerry had their debate, they were asked what is the number one security threat facing this country. Their answer surprisingly was the same, nuclear terrorism, the idea that al Qaeda could get nuclear material and bring it into this country.

Well, there are only so many things that prevent al Qaeda from doing that. It's not their lack of motivation or will. Osama bin Laden has already talked about wanting an American Hiroshima. The obstacles are getting the materiel, fashioning the bomb, and getting it into the country. Getting the materiel, unfortunately, is not very difficult, given the plentiful amounts of highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union.

Building a bomb is not that difficult because the technology is now decades old. Getting into the country, unfortunately, is not very difficult. That's something this bill seeks to address by deploying radiation-detector portal technologies; and more than just deploying them, as essential as that is, doing the analysis to find out which of the portal technologies will be most effective in keeping a nuclear or radiological weapon out of the country. These are the kinds of investments that are being delayed, stalled, run down by a party that has run our Nation's finances into the ground in the last 6 years, that is complaining about an earmark process better than anything they proposed.

We need to move this bill forward. My friends in the minority don't have the credibility on this issue. They may have had it at some point, but they lost it in the last 6 years. This is not the way to retrieve it.

We need to move this bill forward. Now is the time to do it. We need to implement these reforms to improve our safeguards against nuclear material getting into this country. We need to ensure that our cargo is protected.

We need to ensure that any number of investments that are made in interoperable communications equipment and our firefighters and our police officers are made, and they are made now.

I urge this bill move forward. I urge the delay come to an end.

Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to talk about what my friend from California just mentioned. And I want to just simply say that I think that the gentleman from California is truly a gentleman, and I enjoy the time we've spent together. But there are just a few things I think need to be corrected.

Number one, the gentleman mentioned that over the last 6 years, the Republicans, when they were in charge, squandered the opportunity, lost the credibility. Well, guess what? It's only taken 6 months for this majority, maybe 6 years for the former majority; 6 months, and this majority has turned their back on earmark reforms. Six months into the new majority, and this majority has turned this thing upside down.

What do I mean when I say that, Mr. Chairman?

Let me just quote our current Speaker, on December 14, 2006, "We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."

What happened?

Well, a number of things happened. Under the Republican majority, earmarks got out of control. Under the Republican majority, waste occurred. Let me be the first one to say that.

So what happened?

In the last session, Republicans changed the rules. We said, if you're going to have an earmark, a pork-barrel project, Number one, we've got to see it. It's got to be in the bill. A Member has to have their name attached to it, so they have to defend it.

But most importantly, the American people need to see this, and it needs to be in the bill as it comes to the House floor, as it goes to the Senate Chamber, so that the American people have time to look at it, so that transparency and sunlight can bring accountability to the process, and so that we, as the people's Representatives, each and every one of us, representing 670,459 people, can have judgment, can vote on it. That's transparency. That's accountability. It happened late in our majority, but it happened.

What did the Democrats do as they took over the majority?

To their credit, Mr. Chairman, they extended, enhanced and improved upon these rules. So I would, at this moment, like to give some bipartisan credit to the fact that we negotiated these earmark reforms in the last session, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, to their credit, carried them over and made them better.

Where are we 6 months later? Where are we 6 months into this new majority? We went three steps forward, and now we went six steps backwards.

Mr. Chairman, what are we doing?

No transparency, no earmarks in these bills, no opportunity for the American people, the public, to see what's in this legislation. All we have in these bills are big slush funds, a $5.9 billion slush fund in the bill that's coming up next, a $20 billion earmark slush fund in the bill coming after that.

What does that mean?

They're putting billions and billions of dollars of fiscal space of a general earmark in these bills, and they're simply saying, this money will be earmarked afterwards, when I, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee decide to put this money in to go toward pet projects, pet constituencies, at my choosing, at my scrutinizing, after Congress has the ability to consider these things on their own merits.

Is that transparency? Is that accountability? Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.

They have gone backwards, back on their word, back from bringing transparency and accountability to Congress.

So let me just say for the record, both parties have messed this up. Both majorities have seen the light, and this majority is going backwards on this. That is what this is all about.

We recognize we've got to have more transparency and accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. That's one of the problems we have. The other problem is this idea that we can just spend our way into prosperity, this idea that we can just spend more and more and more money, and all things wrong in America will be fixed. If only we take more money out of people's paychecks, bring them up here to Washington and spend their money, every problem can be solved.

This is the problem we have at a basic philosophical level. Here is where we are just 6 months into this new majority.

The President gave us a budget. His budget increased spending across all levels of government. His budget increased discretionary spending. Well, what happened since that budget came? Six billion new dollars in February in the omnibus appropriation. Then, just last month, $17 billion in new spending of unrelated, nonrequested spending in an emergency appropriation bill to go to funding the troops in Iraq, $17 billion that has nothing to do with Iraq. And now, $21 billion in more spending. $43 billion out the window, out the door in new spending in just 6 months.

How do you balance the budget, Mr. Chairman? You balance it by controlling spending.

Chair: The time of the gentleman has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]: We believe you balance the budget by controlling spending, not raising taxes. And at the end of the day, this is what the differences are.

The majority brought to the floor a bill and passed the largest tax increase in American history. They modified it to possibly reduce that to the second largest tax increase in American history. So what can they do? Raise more spending and raise taxes to balance the budget.

We want to balance the budget at a much lower level of taxing and spending. We want more transparency in the process. We want to control Federal spending, and we want the American people to see exactly how their money is being spent so that their Representative can call these issues into question, not put the power in one man's hands here in Congress, which is the current proposal before us.

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it's been an interesting process these last, give or take, 24 hours. As a freshman legislator who spent 24 years in the Tennessee State senate, in those 24 years in the senate I saw the parties work together. Democrats and Republicans worked together for the betterment of our State. We had Republican governors. We had Democratic governors. We had Republican and Democratic legislators.

What America wants is for the parties to work together. On most of the bills we've had, they were brought by Democrats, and it's been called a Democratic Congress, but many of the bills that were passed by this Congress were done in a bipartisan way.

There were Republicans who voted for stem cell, not a majority, I believe, but Republicans voted for the stem cell research. There were some Republicans who even voted for the minimum wage. There were Republicans who thought prescription drug prices should come down. There were Republicans who even cared about college loans being brought down. There were bipartisan efforts to bring about progress.

There was much less bipartisanship in the effort to save lives in Iraq and end that wasteful and unfortunate policy we have in the Middle East, but--however, there was bipartisanship.

During this debate, one of the most serious requests debates we could have, the Homeland Security bill to protect us from natural disasters, to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorists, we have gotten into the most divisive partisan debate that I've seen in this Congress in the 5 months I've been here.

Much of the debate has not been about the Homeland Security bill, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman. It's been about attempts to attack our Speaker, the first woman ever elected Speaker of this House of Representatives, a great day in this country when the glass ceiling was broken, when a great lady was put in this position, the highest position a woman has ever been in in the legislative body in the history of the United States. To try to tear down the Speaker, trying to tear down the party and trying to bring up other issues, rather than talking about Homeland Security.

Yesterday, Congressman Arcuri spoke, a former prosecutor. He said, you know, in opening statements if a person talks about the facts, they've got a case. And if they talk about things other than the facts, they don't. And the opposition party has not talked about the facts. They've brought up everything but the facts of the Homeland Security bill. They really haven't shown where there are problems with this bill.

The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman, talked about, used all the buzz words, the buzz words of "slush fund," "pet projects," "pork" and others.

The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and he knows it as well as everybody else knows it, he's not against those things. He just wants his slush fund, his pet projects and his pork. And when people throw those terms out, because that's not what they are, they are Congress citing specific needs to be placed in the law to that represent their districts. But then what he does is disparage government.

I have spent my life in government, my entire life, and I've found it a great calling, and I think we should all try to make people think more and better about government and have young people see this as a high calling, Mr. Chairman. There are young people in our audience. They should see this as a place where they want to serve and see government as working, and I think some of them do.

But to use these terms in a disparaging way when what the party's trying to do is to say, we want our share, we want our earmarks, not pork, but our earmarks, is wrong. And it's wrong when you take the oath of office to uphold the Constitution. You should be upholding government and supporting government.

And it's unfortunate we've seen this. This has been a low point in the Congress since I've been here.

I am proud to be a part of this Congress. There are many Members on the other side of the aisle that I'm proud to serve with as well. There are some very, very fine people, and I'm sure the gentlemen who have spoken today are all fine people.

But we need to rise above some of this partisanship, try to pass this Homeland Security bill, protect our country, and inspire people to serve in government and realize that it's a process, and the process involves the Senate, and it involves the executive, it involves both sides of the aisle. And to try to tear down one side tears down government in general. We're all part of the process, and I wish we'd work together and pass this bill.

We were up till 2 o'clock this morning because of seven moves to rise and have the committee adjourn. All seven failed. They knew they were all going to fail. And it was a burden on the staff, it was a burden on the Congress, and probably a burden on people that wanted to watch something else on C-SPAN last night.

But with that, Mr. Chairman, I just encourage our colleagues to support this bill, to protect America and to have a debate that is germane to the issues concerning homeland security.

Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I intend to yield a couple of minutes to my colleague here.

But before I do, my colleague who just spoke said that we ought to be working together, and I really agree with that. The problem is, to my knowledge, the people on our side really weren't consulted about these appropriation bills in any real detail, and we didn't know that they were going to put pork-barrel projects in the bill after the fact, maybe in conference committee when we didn't have any idea what was going on there and we didn't have any control over those bills because they weren't, those pork-barrel projects weren't debated here on the floor.

So let me just say that we really should work together, and I hope you'll convey that to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so in the future we won't be taking this much time on the floor.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]: I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding.

I want to say to the person who just spoke, who referenced me, that my motivation here is just to come and get more pork for myself. I know the gentleman's new here, but he doesn't know me, if that's what he said.

He also mentioned that you want to make this system more democratic. We should be here fighting for good government and for democracy and fairness. Is giving one man in this body this power like Caesar, to decide whether or not earmarks go in and out of bills, democratic? Is that small D democratic?

Is giving all the power to one chairman on how all 32,000 earmark requests in his power, is that democratic? Or should we have the ability, as Democrats and Republicans, in a small D democracy, the ability to vote on these things?

Shouldn't the American people have the choice and the ability to see how their money is being spent? Or should we, in the name of good government, give the chairman of the Appropriations Committee sole discretion, sole decision-making power, on how tens of billions of dollars are spent on tens of thousands of projects?

That's democracy? That's good government? That's fairness? I think not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the idea that we should simply relegate our power, our voting cards, our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents, to one chairman of one committee to spend tens of billions of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on tens of thousands of projects, if we think that that is good government, that is fairness, that is what democracies do, that is not my opinion. That is not my value. That is not what I think democracy is all about.

I believe we are here to fight for fairness, transparency, accountability. And what we are here to do is to make sure that our taxpayers dollars are spent wisely, that they are spent in a transparent way, that there is accountability in this system.

Why on earth does each and every one of us want to delegate our lawmaking power and authority to one person to decide how our taxpayer dollars are spent is beyond me. But for those of you who say that our motivation is simply to get a bigger slice of the pie, to get more pork-barrel spending, that's just not the case. And I think that's insulting.

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]: I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Rep. Steve Cohen [D-TN9]: I apologize to you for that. I don't know you personally, and I was reflecting on the politicians in general, all of our government representatives, Democrats and Republicans. So as far as any direct thing, I shouldn't have said that specifically, and I think you have got a wonderful reputation and I appreciate the fact that your germaneness has returned to you in this debate.

Rep. Paul Ryan [R-WI1]: I appreciate that and I want to be fair and civil here.

But this is a big issue, Mr. Chairman. It is not about delaying some bill. It is about bringing accountability and transparency back to the process in how we spend taxpayer dollars, and it is about not going back on your word, and that is what this majority is doing.

Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I agree with him.

The fact of the matter is that there is billions of dollars in pork that is stuck in this bill or will be stuck in this bill and nobody in this place knows what it is going to be. And many of the liberal newspapers that support your side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, are taking issue with this practice. So even your own supporters, the New York Times and Washington Post, are giving you Hades for this.

So I would just like to say my colleagues, you ought to reevaluate what you are doing today because I think it is hurting you. You are sticking a knife in your own foot by doing this.

Now, the thing I would like to say before my time runs out is that the Democrats, since they have taken charge, have increased in authorization bills by $105 billion in new spending. They are hiding pork, as I said, from the American people.

They want to let the tax cuts expire, which means that everybody in this country will have a tax increase. In Indiana it will amount to about $2,200 per person. That is because you are letting the tax cuts expire.

Chair: The gentleman's time has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5]: Mr. Chairman, if the tax cuts expire, that in effect is a tax increase. And that tax increase will amount to $392 billion on the American people, the largest tax increase in American history.

This second-degree amendment here only cuts $9 million in spending. Just $9 million. You guys have already authorized $105 billion in new spending. Why in the world would you object to a $9 million spending cut? It doesn't make sense.

My colleague from Tennessee just said that we ought to work together. I really agree with that, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the appropriations chairman will take that to heart and in the future not do the things that he did in this bill so we won't have to stay here all night and all day debating the same paragraph in one bill because you won't work with the Republican minority. You always complained about us and now you are doing worse.

Chair: The Chair would remind the gentleman from Indiana to address his remarks to the Chair.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in order to work in this House, there are many good friends that we engage with, and I just listened to a good friend of mine on the other side of the aisle. But I think we are missing the straight and narrow road as our colleagues continue to be repetitive and a broken record.

Let me indicate that almost like the terminology "border security" and "war against terror," there is no disagreement between the parties in terms of transparency, I would hope, in this new Congress. My good friends on the other side of the aisle know that the stumbles that they made in the last Congresses motivated the American public to change hands as it relates to the majority. It is certainly foolish for them to think that this majority would muddle it up by not furthering the challenges and the instructions given by the people, which was transparency. And I know that they know that no earmark will move to finality without the American public's having the opportunity to scrutinize and to assess those earmarks of each Member. Earmarks that must serve the American public not special interests.

But now we are in a state which calls to question the commitment of the minority to this whole issue of homeland security. I know that all of us can find a number of different ways to utilize these dollars. What we found from many Members on this side of the aisle is that we have attempted to plus-up, for example, the urban area grants, which help the high-tier, particularly sensitive, and troubled and terror-prone cities around America, that is, moving dollars to improve the security of vulnerable areas.

The simple reduction of funds does not speak to the singular question and the responsibility of the Homeland Security authorizing committee, which I have the honor of serving on as the subcommittee Chair with my chairman, the Honorable BENNIE THOMPSON.

We know every day, as the chairman of the subcommittee on Homeland Security for appropriations, David Price, does, and I know his ranking member, that every day questions of homeland security appear before the American public. I have a personal remembrance, Mr. Chairman, of singing on the steps of this body "America the Beautiful" on that forlorn day, a day that no American could ever have imagined in their life, those who were not of the World War II generation to have remembered Pearl Harbor, but no one could have fathomed the strike that came to us on September 11, 2001. It was then that we changed our complete mindset that we had no time, no leeway, no latitude, if you will, to play around the edges of homeland security. We are doing that and we have done that last night. We did that all into the wee hours, playing around homeland security.

And while we fiddle away the time, the first responder and port security grant program is languishing, dollars that are needed by those on the front lines. State grants regarding law enforcement, urban area grants that Houston, as one of the tier-one cities, certainly would be losing and many in the State of Texas. Albeit the incident at JFK is still being explored, even the thought that individuals would have the knowledge to explode a pipeline that would then literally obliterate an airport and the surrounding areas says that we are fiddling while Rome is burning.

And so I want to work with my colleagues. I know that the chairman of this subcommittee does. The chairman of our full Committee on Homeland Security, the authorizing committee, wants to as well. There are issues that we want to confront, and, certainly, I want the most secure airports one can find, not only the area where the traveling public is but the area where employees are, the area where workers are, the back part of the airport. I want pipelines to be safe.

And as it relates to the issue dealing with preparedness, we were in a subcommittee hearing today where the question has come up whether the disabled are secure, whether the vulnerable communities are secure.

So, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say we are fiddling while Rome is burning. We need to move forward because the question will be for the American public when a tragedy happens, as I close, where were you and what did you do? They will just film what happened last night and what is happening today, and we will not be able to answer the question with dignity.

The leadership in this House believes in homeland security. We need to move this bill forward.

Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I too am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I was also a Federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, and I also serve on the Ethics Committee. I would respectfully submit that we are not muddling up the process but rather trying to restore ethics and integrity to the process and to this institution.

In my view, this is Congress at its worst. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have created a secret slush fund with billions in secret earmarks hidden from public scrutiny. This comes on the heels of many broken promises that we heard, promises such as from Speaker Pelosi: "We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks."

The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said: "We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of the night."

Yet that is exactly what is occurring in this body. CNN, not exactly a conservative think tank, actually said that the Democrats promised reform and it is not happening: "The `anti-earmark reforms' are just for show. Mere window dressing." This process signals a retreat in the secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. Earmarks should always be open to public vetting, full debate, and floor challenge, as we attempted to do in the last Congress.

Now, Mr. Obey and the Democrats are stuck between the pork and those campaign promises that they made. And so those promises are given away. The majority wants this Congress to operate behind closed doors in dark corridors where the precept of Justice Brandeis that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is hardly known. The powerful impact of public debate and a free press are critical features of an American democracy and they are missing, Mr. Chairman. They are missing here today in this Congress.

Secrecy creates a breeding ground for corruption. Openness is an important part of ensuring that government officials are acting in the best interest of the public and that the citizens are not being manipulated by special interest groups.

Here we have one man, one man and an unelected staff, determining the power of the purse for the United States Congress, acting on behalf of 435 Members elected by the United States. Yet we have one man to make all the decisions about the spending for the United States Government. This is not, I submit, a democracy. This is a monarchy.

And to quote James Cooper: "A monarchy is the most expensive of all forms of government, the regal state requiring a costly parade, and he who depends on his own power to rule must strengthen that power by bribing the active and enterprising whom he cannot intimidate.

"A nation is truly corrupt, when, after having, by degrees lost its character and liberty, it slides from democracy into aristocracy for monarchy; this is the death of the political body ..... "

Someone said: "The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of democracy should be the weapon of openness." That is what we are trying to achieve here today.

I will close with a quote from Lord Byron, and I think he sums up this debate better than any quote I have heard when he said: "The Cardinal is at his wit's end; it is true that he had not far to go."

Rep. Peter Welch [D-VT]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The question of earmarks really has two questions to it. But, first, why are we here having a debate about earmarks? We are because in the 12 years before the last election, the use of earmarks, something that has been around since the beginning of the Republic, exploded and it went from around $5 billion in the budget to around $13 billion in the budget. And it really raises two questions, aside from the political opportunism that may present itself in this debate.

The first question about earmarks is whether it is appropriate for individuals who have the most power in this Congress to take advantage of their situation to get appropriations that go to their districts. Generally, the projects that are funded are projects that are supported and worthwhile. But, in fact, in the budgetary process, it is the people who are in the right committees or have the most power that have the opportunity to get the greatest benefit.

By the way, that is a fairness issue just within this body, because if there is going to be allocation of resources, they should be extended for the benefit of the entire country, people in each and every one of the 435 congressional districts, people in each of the 50 States and our territories.

The second issue is a budgetary reform issue. If you have appropriation by earmarks, if highway projects are funded on the basis of who is on the committee or who is in leadership or who has the ear of the Chair, then it means that decisions are being made on personal relationships as opposed to public need.

I come from a State legislature, Mr. Chairman, where we had to wrestle with this question of earmarks. And every legislator had an immense amount of pressure on them to deliver for their district; in fact, the needs of the district were compelling and reasonable. We had to struggle with an approach that would take the limited funds that were available in our treasury and allocate them for highway projects on the basis of where the greatest need was in the State, not on the basis of who had the most clout.

So, Mr. Chairman, this debate that has resulted in eight motions to rise, spending over 10 hours on what essentially looks like a minor and very political amendment is really not about earmarks, because there has been a complete erasing of history in the role that the other side has played in getting us to the point where we are on earmarks.

Also, this debate on earmarks is taking place in the Homeland Security bill, which is a bill that traditionally has not had earmarks. We could be having a debate about the MILC price support program and arguing about earmarks, but there are no earmarks that have been part of the Homeland Security bill in this Congress or, to its credit, in prior Congresses.

So, why is it that we are arguing about, admittedly an important issue, the question of earmarks and what impact it has on questions of fairness and what impact it has on questions of fiscal responsibility in the Homeland Security bill, that has independent integrity and importance to the people of this country, and where the history has been that there are no earmarks?

It would allow a reasonable observer to conclude that essentially this is about politics. In fact, it is my view and, I think, the view of most people that we really should not be injecting politics into the question of homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, you come from the City of New York. You, better than anyone else, know the urgency of making certain that we have our borders protected, that we are taking aggressive and effective measures to combat terrorism, to detect terrorists coming into our country, to have adequate funds and resources for our local fire departments and our local police stations. So, Mr. Chairman, the loser here is one person, it is the American people. And who wins and who loses in this political debate, whether it's the other side or our side, we will let the commentators decide.

We are making no progress on moving ahead on an earmark reform approach, largely because the vehicle that the other side has chosen to use is holding hostage a Homeland Security bill that doesn't have earmarks in it, won't have earmarks in it, in the past has not had earmarks in it.

Chair:

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Chair: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be postponed.

Rep. Mary Fallin [R-OK5]: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the executive salary in the Office of Secretary and Executive Management account to the FY 2007 level, representing a $138,000 reduction from the $4.588 million to $4.45 million. The current bill's funding level represents a 3 percent increase over 2007 FY budget enacted.

There has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S. citizen, and growing by over $1 billion a day. Entitlement spending, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is out of control, and within a generation will either force significant cutbacks in services and benefits, or we are going to have to have massive tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office has been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, i.e., spending that is on autopilot, and the outside annual spending process are occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-known demographic trends and other factors. Discretionary spending has also grown exponentially and must be brought under control.

This amendment will be the first step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find both commonsense and innovative ways to do more with less. The Federal budget must not grow faster than American families have the ability to pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that in my State, my citizens are very concerned about spending in Washington. I have heard a lot of talk this year about the elections and what occurred during the elections, and that voters gave us a mandate for change here in Congress, that they didn't want business as usual. People have told me that Congress spends too much, and we have to remember that the money that we spend here is not our money; it's the taxpayers' money.

And the taxpayers' pocketbooks are stretched these days. The price of gasoline has been skyrocketing, the price of health care, the price of prescription drugs. Families are just squeezed these days. And I believe it is time that we have this discussion about controlling our spending.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with slowing down this process. I think the American people want us to slow down the spending process. They want us to look at balancing our budget. They want us to prioritize here in Congress what's important, what's a spending priority. They want us to reduce the deficit.

They want to know where the money is going. They appreciate us fine-tuning our appropriation bill. And it seems reasonable to me that we have this discussion. That is why I support this amendment.

There is a 13 percent increase in spending in this appropriation bill, and that's huge. When you have $1 billion here and $1 billion there, that all adds up, and we still have many other appropriation bills to consider. And frankly, no one in my district has called me to say, you know what? The government doesn't spend enough. I want you to spend more. They want us to look for government waste. They want us to control spending.

And while we are increasing spending in this Congress, we have yet to even look at other issues that we need to discuss, the rising costs of entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Mr. Chairman, last night I heard the majority leader talk about securing America and the funding of homeland security and how important this piece of legislation is. I appreciate his comments, and I agree with that; it is important that we secure America. I don't believe that anyone on my side of the aisle objects to funding homeland security. The objections that we have been talking about over the last 24 hours are about spending. It is about the process of determining how the earmarks are processed and projects are processed.

I want to remind this House that the President and a Republican Congress led the effort to fund homeland security and to protect our Nation. We support homeland security. But I would also like to suggest that securing America also means the financial security of America, the financial security of our Nation. And financial security comes through transparency, openness and open discussion on this House floor of spending and spending priorities, and allowing Members to participate and to vote on those priorities in the light of day.

This process of voting on a level of funding for homeland security, then having a conference report and then having one person in Congress and their staff decide on the add-ons, the earmarks we're spending, to me just doesn't pass the openness test and the transparency test.

Chair: The time of the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Ms. Fallin was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Rep. Mary Fallin [R-OK5]: When I was a kid, we used to have a game we played called "King of the Hill." And that would be when one person would get on this hill and we would fight off others who would come and try to take control.

This process reminds me of the game "King of the Hill", where one person is trying to play that. I just don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is the right thing to do.

This is our opportunity in Congress to show that we mean business in controlling our spending, we mean business in reducing our deficit, we mean business in transparency and openness of earmarks. And we can't lose this opportunity, we can't take a step back.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to request that our appropriations chairman, who is a very capable and able man, delay consideration of this bill until we have proper transparency in the earmark process. It is a choice that the majority can make now, starting with this first appropriation bill. The majority is in control. And also, the appropriations chairman could come to the floor to this debate and assure this body and the Members that we will be able to see the individual earmarks and vote on them on this floor.

This process will not allow us to do that the way it is now. And what better way to start off the appropriations process than to start with this bill, with transparency on the earmarks, transparency of funding?

Let's fix it now, Mr. Chairman.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a few comments on the proposed amendment, and perhaps a reality check, since the Member offering the amendment has neglected some important facts that would put this in perspective.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, once again, goes after the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Virtually every amendment we have dealt with in this long debate has chosen that target.

We just finished 10 hours of debate on an attempt to cut in half the Secretary's legal advice office. Now, this amendment would cut funding from the requested level for the Office of the Executive Secretary.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have spoken all day about the President's requests. Well, what the introducer of this amendment didn't tell us was that the bill, actually cuts $539,000 from the President's request for this item. So we are well under the President's request, and she wants to cut it further.

For department operations overall, we have cut $73 million from the President's request, and our recommended amount is also less than was provided for 2007. So, it is not as though we are funding the departmental offices lavishly. Quite the contrary, we have scrutinized the requests carefully. We have cut the requests considerably. But we have tried to give the Department the funds that it needs to maintain its own operations.

Now, we have debated an amendment for 10 hours having to do with the general counsel's office. Last night, we were treated to eight motions to rise, eight motions to go home without continuing or completing work on this bill. I think any fair observer would say this is an attempt to obstruct and to delay. These are desultory motions.

So, now we have another amendment in that same vein. This comes on top of days of our Republican friends railing against bureaucrats. Not one voice on the minority side said a thing in defense of the Bush Administration's legitimate needs for the Department, needs which we have assessed and have actually cut back the funding for, but needs which, nonetheless, one would expect Republican Members to have some interest in, some sensitivity to. Not one voice was raised in defense.

All I can say is that we have scrubbed these administrative items very conscientiously. We have reduced them overall and in particular. So we are confident in our recommendations. But we do have to ask, why? Why should we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for the administration, stand up for the Bush administration's own Department, when Republicans themselves are unwilling to do so?

Now, we are well aware that not every Republican feels this way. There are Republicans and Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on Homeland Security on this bill and over many years. But the group of Republicans who are dominating this debate seem to have no regard for that, no interest in it. So it falls to us to defend their own administration. And we are not inclined to make a very strong recommendation on this amendment.

If the Republican Members of this House want to take money away from this account that we have already reduced considerably, then they can be our guest.

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard comments in this Chamber today that there are attempts on this side of the aisle to obstruct. I'll tell you what the attempt is that we are making over here. It is to shed light on a topic that is now of interest to Americans. We had a Member come into the Chamber last evening, and he was talking about an earmark that he had requested, the "Bridge to Nowhere."

There aren't a lot of people that understood our jargon. They didn't understand our acronyms. It seems like every occupation has its own language. But when the American people started reading about the "Bridge to Nowhere," when it was on the cover of Parade magazine, when you were in the doctor's office waiting and you picked up the Reader's Digest trying to kill a little time, golly, here was an article in the Reader's Digest about the "Bridge to Nowhere."

So suddenly the term "earmark" has come to be understood by the American public. They started reading a little more, and they started finding out about earmarks and how people in Congress with seniority, with a great deal of power because of their seniority, had the ability to direct spending.

It is like when I talk to a high school or a junior high or middle school class. I always tell them, Government has no money of its own. The only money that government has is the money that is extracted from its citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I try to impress this upon young people and try to get them prepared for the first day after they have worked on a job. They get their paycheck and then they take a look at it, and they see how much government is taking out of their paycheck. I want them to start thinking right away about how government spends its money.

I think a lot of Americans, whether Democrat, Republican, if you looked at the political spectrum, whether they were conservative or moderate or liberal, they got a little upset to think about how some individuals had that much power to take tax dollars from people all over the United States and spend them on a project that they deemed important.

I will never forget the first time I was in a press conference, Mr. Chairman, with a number of other Members when we were looking at an omnibus bill, and the visual, just having all those pages right there on a chair was startling. There were all those things in there called "earmarks," and some were just downright silly. I mean, the American public would groan when they would think that Members would take money from citizens around the country and then spend them that way.

So as we worked through this reform process, as we talked about it, we had heroes in our midst that would get up time after time and try to go after some of these egregious earmarks and get beaten back. But you can't always determine who is going to win the war when you look at individual battles.

Although those individual battles were lost, we are going to win the war on this earmark thing because the American people know right from wrong. They know there should not be an abuse of power where someone on their unelected staff, and I have to tell you, I admire the staffers on Capitol Hill, most of them are young, because we have long days and we have hard work and it takes someone with a sharp mind and dedication to work, but they are not accountable to anybody's constituent.

When I go home to my district, I can read letters to the editor about me. People can call me personally on the phone. People can come to my office. Even though each of us represents over 600,000 people, we are approachable, and we have to be accountable. But staff is not accountable when you have power vested in one individual.

In my family we have a little saying. We say, Does somebody think they are God? And because we are God-fearing Christians, we do not believe that we are talking about capital G-O-D. What we are talking about is G-A-W-D. Who does an individual think they are when they try to exercise this kind of power?

The American public has an innate sense of right and wrong. The public's business should not be done in private, with one all-knowing individual surrounded by staff, getting in letters or comments whether this earmark is good or this earmark is bad. Maybe eventually we will have a sign that says "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" just to conserve time. That is not right. The American people know it, and we all know it.

There has been a problem with earmarks for a long time. Today is the day that we need our friends on the other side of the aisle to admit what we know what they know, and what they know we know, and reform this process.

Chair: The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Musgrave was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO4]: Mr. Chairman, today is the day that we know the American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent. If we're going to have earmarks, let's have the whole Congress, 435 of us, duly elected by our constituents, give it an up-or-down vote and have individuals who want an earmark have the courage to stand up and convince them, again, whether Republican, Democrats, conservative, moderate, liberal, wherever you put them on the political spectrum, the American people's business should be conducted in public, and the American people know that.

Rep. Tom Feeney [R-FL24]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would say that I really miss the grand old days of the liberal tax-and-spend party, because the great liberals in our Nation's recent history were never ashamed about being honest with the American people that they wanted to raise taxes and they wanted to increase spending. In fact, they campaigned on increasing taxes and they campaigned on increasing spending.

One of the problems we have with the hypocrisy in what is going on in the last 6 months is that we are dramatically increasing taxes, $392 billion, secretly and surreptitiously, through the budget bill that repeals the most pro-growth tax cuts since Ronald Reagan was President. And now we have a process by which American taxpayers' money will be spent in secret, behind closed doors and in the dark. I really admire the grand old liberal days, when raising taxes and increasing spending was something that was done just right out in the open, where everybody could see it and debate it.

I have heard in the last 10 hours of debate that Republicans have been accused of being repetitious. It is better to be repetitive than disingenuous or hypocritical, in my view.

Winston Churchill once famously said that there is nothing that one government learns so readily from another as how to spend other people's money. I would tell you that there is a critical process that is being undermined here that is important to a functioning Congress and that will embarrass this institution if we don't stop it right now.

That is why this debate is so important. It is not about $1 million or $1 billion here or there. It is about how we go forward in spending the people's money in a transparent, honest and open fashion.

We have had our Democratic colleagues point out, I think fairly, that Republicans maybe aren't in the best glass house to throw stones when it comes to the issue of spending money or earmarks. I will tell you that it is very important that we acknowledge Republican failures.

Not all of us were happy with some of the things that happened in my last 6 years. For example, I voted against numerous GOP-led appropriation bills. I voted for virtually all of Congressman JEFF FLAKE's amendments. I was on occasion punished by having my own priorities stripped out of bills.

I voted for cuts in every GOP appropriations bill in my first 6 years. I criticized our Republican President for overspending and for not exercising his veto to discipline Congress. I criticized my own leadership. I supported every reform effort I can think of in the methods of opening up earmark processes to transparency and honesty. I even went on national TV and said that the Republican-led Congress was spending money like drunken sailors.

I have to tell you, a Navy captain in California admonished me. He said Congress was not spending money like drunken sailors; that drunken sailors spend their own money, and, when they run out, they quit spending. And I have to give it to him.

So I want to tell you that not all of us are coming here and ridiculing things that we have not ridiculed in the past. I applauded the Democratic reforms that were promised in terms of transparency and earmarks. As soon as we were told back in January that the reform-minded Democrats were going to open up the process and make it transparent, I said publicly that that would be one good thing about a Congress that I otherwise disagreed with its priorities.

But here I am 6 months later ruing the day that I ever said something nice about intentions, because the intentions never materialized. In fact, we have gone dramatically backwards. We are now going to have 434 of us give our proxy to the appropriations chairmen, all the cardinals and Chairman Obey, and we are going to let them decide how to spend the people's money.

We did away with proxy voting decades ago in Congress, and now we are going to have spending by proxy. That is wrong. It is fundamentally an affront to the American people, and it undermines the entire legislative process.

I can tell you that I was Speaker of the Florida legislature, and when there was trouble because of poor spending, it was almost always due to lack of honesty, openness, and transparency. And the Democratic leadership will rue the day, sooner than later, that it put a cloud of secrecy around spending the taxpayers' dollars. They will regret going back on their word.

Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I was doing some math, and I am sure my colleagues are aware of this. If you are not, you might be shocked. We spent 10 hours on a debate to cut $8 million from the general counsel. Now, you talk about waste. This place runs, the electricity runs, the people are on salary, and that side made us spend 10 hours just to cut $ 8 million, with eight motions to rise to stop the work.

Now, nowhere does anyone get up and discuss the issues in this bill. The bill continues to be a good bill. No matter how much you attack it, no matter how much you avoid dealing with the true issue, the center issue, it continues to be a good bill. I think what is happening here is, as time goes on and different folks and different Members pay attention, we have to continue to repeat some of the things that we have said before, because you put us in that situation.

So, with that in mind, let me remind you that this is the Homeland Security bill. This is the bill and this is the issue that, according to a lot of folks on talk radio, the Republican Party is supposed to be very strong on. Democrats are supposed to be strong on some issues and Republicans are supposed to be strong on some issues, but according to what you tell the world, you are stronger on this.

Mr. Chairman, they claim to be stronger than anyone else in the universe on homeland security, yet you have spent all night, all night, trying to destroy this Homeland Security bill which protects the homeland.

As I said before, I represent New York City. I was in New York on the day of September 11 and we personally, as the rest of the Nation well knows, suffered the pain of having a terrorist attack. Immediately thereafter, we came to the House floor and we created the Department of Homeland Security. That's what this bill is. This is not a bill that talks about earmarks.

Let's try it again.

Now, as you know, I speak two languages, but out of respect to the stenographer, I won't use Spanish, so I will remind you in English, there are no earmarks in this bill. I would say it in Spanish, but I don't know how to say "earmarks" in Spanish. As soon as I do, I'll find a way to say it.

But I'll say it in English again: There are no earmarks in this bill. There's only security for the homeland. There's port security. There is work for border agents. There is strengthening of cargo shipments, of our airlines, of finding ways to protect ourselves from the possible next terrorist attack. That's what this bill does.

And you spend hour after hour after hour with procedural motions to adjourn to go home, to stop working and telling us that there are somehow earmarks in here that have to come to the light of day and telling us that a new process and a new system has been invented. Yes, a new one is in place. It's one that is going to tell us who, which Member of Congress, asked for money to go to a certain program in his or her district and throughout the Nation.

And let me tell you something. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that the administration or the bureaucrats are the only people who know how to spend money. I think I know how to spend some dollars in my district. And all an earmark is, is that we tell the agency, spend so much money, usually a very small amount in that particular group, to help that particular group of students, or that particular environmental issue, or to clean up that particular toxic waste. There's not a problem with that.

But when you stand here and tell us that this is what this bill does and that somehow there is a system that has been set up that is horrible, you're kidding yourselves. And so I must do something that I didn't want to do, and I'm not going to mention names because that's not proper. But do you know, my fellow Republicans, that 65 of you have written letters to me, chairman of a subcommittee, asking for 137 projects totaling close to $350 million?

Now, I didn't get a chance to ask my chairman, Mr. Obey, but the committee that I chair, Financial Services and General Government, is not one of the larger budgets. I shouldn't admit that in public, but it isn't one of the largest budgets, and it doesn't have that many areas where you can earmark even if you wanted to. But 65 of you have asked for 137 programs for $340 million. Some of you have spoken on the floor.

Chair: The Chair would remind all Members to address their remarks to the Chair.

Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and to speak in favor of the gentlelady's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Fred Bastiat said in the dawn of this Republic that government is that great fiction through which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. I am not sure if there are too many subjects other than earmark transparency being debated here today that hold more relevance to such a comment, and I am afraid that Members of both parties are unwilling to admit that.

It is critically important that we do because it comes down to the very core of who we are as Americans and whether or not we are still capable of self-governance, and whether or not we will allow the fabric of liberty that has been so carefully woven throughout the years to be torn asunder while we all stand by and watch.

So to that end, Mr. Chairman, let me remind Members of this body of some of the promises made by those in the majority only a few short months ago.

One prominent Member said explicitly, "We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks." Another said, "We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night. We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on." Of course this was after campaigning on the pledge to, quote, "make this House the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history."

But, Mr. Chairman, these promises, though unequivocally made, have been unequivocally broken. Reforms designed to ensure openness, transparency and accountability have been trampled underfoot by the very Members who so vocally called for their enactment. We saw this most egregiously in March of this year with the emergency supplemental legislation, when funds were desperately needed to provide for our men and women in uniform and instead they were laden with $21 billion in irrelevant pork-barrel spending.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid we are seeing it again today in this capricious decision to blatantly shut the American public out of one of the most important and necessary duties of this House and our representative form of government, that of allocating taxpayer funds for the general good of the American people.

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee has arbitrarily decided that a few select Members of Congress are more capable of ascertaining the public good than the public is itself. Their actions imply that these Members should be allowed, behind closed doors, to decide where tax dollars are spent without being indebted in any way to the collective intelligence and scrutiny of the general public, the press, the media, the blogosphere, and the American people themselves, of course, who are given the charge to keep their elected Representatives accountable.

Mr. Chairman, in any other case, this would be called an oligarchy, the bureaucratic rule of the few over the many. It was this very arbitrary confiscation of power that once caused our Nation's founders to throw off the yoke of the Crown of England. A single glance at the footnotes of history demonstrates clearly that breaching that dam sets up a dangerous and degenerative historical precedent.

James Madison in the Federalist Papers presaged this misappropriation of power that we are witnessing today when he said it this way: "The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality. Yet there is no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice."

Mr. Chairman, I urge every Member of this body to recall our commitment to God and the people we serve, to preserve the rules of justice. Hidden slush funds, overseen by a very few people in the dark of night, that is not justice, Mr. Chairman. Camouflaged tax increases that could be the largest in history, that is not justice.

We come here in a moment of contention, but we can turn that moment of contention into a time to restore the transparency and accountability to this appropriations process, and I hope we do that, Mr. Chairman. I hope we vote for the gentlelady's amendment.

Rep. Christopher Murphy [D-CT5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

My friend who just spoke and those on the other side of the aisle are fond often of quoting our Founding Fathers. I'm not a student of James Madison or some of his brethren, but I would think that they would be turning in their graves if they watched how this House worked for the last 12 years.

I come here as a freshman Member and I am speaking from what I saw from the outside. I am sure this analogy has been used here on the House floor over the course of the last 10 hours, but listening to folks on the other side of the aisle, my Republican friends, complain about the issues of fiscal responsibility and transparency has got to conjure up the image of the bull in the china shop. If you let a bull into a china shop for 12 years and then he just tears down everything off the walls, he knocks over every case, he breaks every single glass in there. And then in this case, he runs out of the china shop and says, Well, why don't you go in there and clean that up? Why doesn't somebody go clean up the mess that we just made?

That's what happened in this House from those of us who watched it from afar on the issues of transparency and on fiscal responsibility.

You know, it's interesting. I sat here last night being called back and forth to the floor for, I guess, eight different motions to shut down this House and to stop the Homeland Security bill from going forward, and I wondered why hadn't that happened in the last 12 years. Why wasn't there a night while we were wasting billions of dollars on this floor in Iraq, $9 billion that we found out are totally unaccounted for? Why didn't we shut down the House one night to talk about that?

As thousands of FEMA trailers were stranded on open lots in the southeastern United States, why didn't we shut down this House for one night to talk about that over the last 12 years? While $70 billion in corporate giveaways were handed out through the Medicare bill, why didn't we shut down this House to talk about that?

Millions of dollars in no-bid contracts. Record deficits year after year. Why on earth wasn't this House shut down like it was last night over the last 12 years?

The American people are probably asking that same question, and there is probably one answer: This House changed hands. There is a different party in charge. And so now there is a very different standard that applies here. The questions that should have been asked for 12 years, well, now in a political context they are being asked today.

I also don't shy away, Mr. Chairman, from the fact that as a new Member, I'm also one of the younger Members here. So I kind of feel that I have an obligation to talk for the millions of my generation that have just become utterly turned off to politics. And when they look at a House being shut down overnight into today, who knows how many more days, to prevent a fairly nonpartisan Homeland Security bill that will protect them, that will protect their parents, their neighbors, that will make their communities a safer place, they know this is about politics, not policy.

And so I think about all of those people who, as they watch this process unfold, are losing their faith in this institution. As angry as I am about the double standard that's applied, about the hypocrisy that's exercised on this House, this House thick with irony over the past several days, I think also about what people think when they see members of the Republican Party playing politics with the issue of homeland security.

Now, we hear claims that this isn't obstruction. We don't have a problem with slowing down the House to talk about this. Well, I would say this. I think that my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, they vastly underestimate the gullibility of the American people. They also vastly overestimate the amount of patience that the American public has left for the games that are being played here on the House floor.

We have an obligation to do all the things that we were sent here to do, to fund homeland security, to protect this Nation. We also have an obligation to live up to the expectations that people had of this Congress when it changed hands, to take the politics out of this House and to start doing the right thing for the American people, not the right thing for either political party.

I would ask we don't go through tonight what we did last night, that we start doing what's right for the American people on policy rather than what's right for the Republican minority on politics.

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI11]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Chair. I will resist the temptation to point out how my Tigers took two out of three from your Mets recently.

I, too, am Generation X and was interested in some of the remarks that were put forward on the floor. First, I do not know that the people who wrote the Federalist Papers and came up with the system of limited government would be rolling in their graves at any attempt that we engage in to stop the obfuscation of earmarks within a process that is less than transparent.

I would also like to note that it is my preference to refer to the bull in the china shop as the bull in the Communist China shop. And speaking of bull, let us not forget that for 4 days this Chamber dealt with little else than a nonbinding/impotent resolution on Iraq that resulted in absolutely nothing except the people's business being delayed for that period of time.

Today, we are here about earmarks and not in general, but in particular the process by which they are inserted into appropriation bills. It seems to me that one of the fundamental problems we have in addressing this is the lack of openness and transparency in the process and that is what this endeavor is about.

It would also strike me that in discussing this process, it is odd to hear the new majority using the President of the United States' budget requests as an absolute baseline of fiscal sanity when throughout the course of the last 4 years in which I have served in this body, they have decried this President of the United States as the epitome of fiscal insanity.

So a baseline request from the President is just that. It is a request.

Now, in many ways we are then bound as an institution to give deference to both the authorizing committees and then the appropriating committees. But we do not delegate carte blanche our individual power which is vested in us by our constituencies to then oversee the work product of both the authorizing committees and the appropriating committees.

Today we are engaged in trying to exercise and reaffirm the right of not only ourselves but of Members on the other side of the aisle to be able to exercise that power that has been temporarily vested in them by their constituents to fully and fairly vet these bills and to make sure that the appropriations are what they are claimed to be, and to make sure that they are put to the best, most efficient and effective purpose that they can be on behalf of the American people.

Part of the reason this is necessary is not everyone in this Chamber takes the same approach to earmarks as other Members might. Some Members do no earmarks at all. Some Members prefer to do many, many earmarks. And some Members, I cite myself, do earmarks at the request of their local municipalities so we can serve as conduits back to our States.

I come from Michigan. It is critical to us that we receive our fair share of Federal spending because we pay more than our fair share of Federal taxes. My State, Michigan, is a donor State. Michigan is currently in a one-state recession, and it is very important that our taxpayers receive their money back. But that is my individual approach. That approach has to be vetted by 434 of my colleagues here, and only an open and transparent process will ensure that if I have made a priority request through a earmark, it is in keeping with the best interest not only of my district but within the best interest of the entire American people.

It would seem to me this is a very reasonable approach, it is a very reasonable request, and it is a request that we are pressing today, as we did yesterday, and will continue to do so because it is part of our constitutional obligation we take as Members of this body.

Were we to do otherwise, it would be a dangerous precedent to set because in my mind we are tragically on the verge of coming up with a new kind of system which will allow very little transparency and openness and thus injure the ability of not only ourselves but the American people to know how their money is being spent.

In the past there was the old joke that in the Congress you had Republicans, Democrats and appropriators. If the process that we in the minority find so offensive is allowed to proceed, you will now have four distinct entities. You will have Republicans, you will have Democrats, you will have appropriators, and you will have super-appropriators.

I don't know if the new super-appropriators get to make these decisions in the dead of night, also get to wear a cape and cowl, if they come with a sporty car so they can chase down Federal earmarks, or if they have a cave or a pole to slide down at their leisure as they go off to work to spend other people's money.

I think, however, this would be a tragic development and would oppose it.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. McCotter was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI11]: Finally, as a member of Generation X, I would like to ask the baby boomers who devised this process to do as you Age of Aquarians often do, let the sun shine in.

Rep. Henry Johnson [D-GA4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I came to Washington, D.C. on January 4 and was sworn in, took a solemn pledge to go to work on behalf of the citizens of this great Nation. We went to work, this side of the aisle, and even with some of our brothers and sisters from the other side of the aisle, we passed legislation. We did things for the least of these, such as the minimum wage. Since then we have taken care of our veterans.

Everything that we have done has ended up being objected to by either our Chief Executive or by our friends on the other side of the aisle. It seems like there is no interest in effectuating good legislation on behalf of the people of this country. It seems as if there is a conspiracy to hold things up now that there has been a change in power. It seems there is a conspiracy to throw monkey wrenches in the plans of those on our side who would do things to pull this country out of morass that it has been in for the last 6 years.

Last night, Mr. Chairman, was a culmination of that conspiracy. It resulted in us being here until 2 a.m. handling trivial motions which were designed to obstruct the progress of the Homeland Security bill which has made its way through committee and has found itself now in a state for final passage.

This is a bill that has no earmarks in it, yet we have got the other side claiming that there is something bad about earmarks happening. The thing is the American people want us to pass this bill. It is going to provide moneys for Customs and Border Patrol and border protection. It is going to help reduce lines at airports by helping fund the Transportation Security Administration, TSA. It will fund the Coast Guard. It will even provide funds for FEMA. And it will provide funding for State and local formula grants. Are we going to pass this bill? Yes, it is going to pass overwhelmingly when the other side finishes playing their games. But the American people see through this.

It is deeply disappointing that we would treat these appropriations bills as a means by which we exercise futile, meaningless and deeply partisan tactics instead of doing the hard work that the American people put us here to do.

I need to remind Members present here today that this debate that we are having about earmarks is really no debate at all, and it is putting needed funds at risk to combat terrorism, and it hurts us in keeping our promises to our veterans and all of the important other issues that this bill addresses.

My home State of Georgia in particular will be better prepared with needed funding delivered to the Urban Area Security Initiative and first responders.

The Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta, the busiest airport in the world, should not suffer because the minority side chooses to hold the Transportation Security Administration funding hostage.

But instead of debating the merits of the bill, they choose to play political games. I choose to work. I ask my friends to please drop the political showmanship and let's proceed to do what the American people want us to do and what they expect us to do and that is to go to work and allow ourselves to be guided by the mandate that the American people have given us.

They clearly told us to gather on this sacred floor to find solutions to the problems that they are confronted with on a daily basis and not to engage in the spectacle like what we did last night.

My friends on the other side of the aisle, you decided to take this vital bill that would provide us with needed protection and turn it into a political exercise. Now is not the time and here is not the place to do that. Let's get on with the business and move this bill forward.

Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

It is clear that the gentleman from Georgia is new here because he has obviously not seen this process played out in the past, or seen his colleagues on his side take days and days and days to take care of appropriations bill and to throw problems in our way.

What he is saying is so disingenuous. This bill does not have to be approved until October 1. The budgets are out there for these agencies until October 1. This does not have to be done today; it doesn't have to be done tomorrow. There is plenty of time to do this.

But what the Democrats have allowed us to do is to expose their hypocrisy. They are giving us that opportunity. Now, we could stop all of this debate immediately, and we would be happy to do that. All they have to do is stop shrouding the earmarks in secrecy. They think that our wanting to expose their secret earmarks is trivial. My constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina don't think that is trivial.

And my colleague here earlier who said that Republicans ask for earmarks, certainly Republicans ask for earmarks, and I think that is appropriate. I didn't ask for any earmarks in this bill. I don't know anybody who asked for earmarks in this bill, but people do. But he misses the whole point, as the Democrats do. They are now trying to turn this on us. They are in the majority. They can handle this problem easily. All they have to do is put out a list of the earmarks, and let everybody know what they are.

No, we have a chairman who wants to have those earmarks in secret until after the bills are passed and then vote on them.

Also, my colleague from New York talks about wasting time. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just been dying to talk about this, and he has given me the perfect opportunity. The majority party said we are going to have people in Washington 5 days a week so you will work. Well, I work very hard when I'm in my district. I know they love to be in Washington, D.C., but let me tell you about waste of time. Let me tell you about some of the bills that have been brought to this floor for us to vote on. It goes on and on and on. There has been one substantive bill signed by the President in 6 months of this Congress.

But let me tell you some of the wonderful, exciting, necessary bills: Recognizing National Americorps Week; supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week; honoring the contributions of the Rocky Mountain Senior Games on its 30th anniversary; in observance of National Physical Education and Sports Week; supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month; honoring the 50th anniversary of the international geophysical year; expressing the support for National Foster Parents Day; honoring the life and accomplishments of Gian Carlo Menotti; recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education; recognizing the 45th anniversary of John Hershel Glenn's historic achievement; supporting the goals and ideals of National Community College Month.

That's why we come to Washington 5 days a week and that our colleagues think that our wanting to shed the light of day on these egregious earmarks is trivial? Folks, I want to tell you, the people in my district do not think it is trivial, but they think some of that stuff we have been voting on, and I could spend the next 5 days reading out the titles of these bills when we talk about waste of time.

But let me tell you, even their press, their friendly press, gets it; and I think the American public gets it. They want to change the topic and make it look like we are obstructing justice. We are shedding light on the problems.

CNN, again, not a bastion of conservativeness said: When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised lawmakers would go public with their requests for funding. They have not done so.

Earmarks should be scrutinized before spending bills go into effect. They are not doing that.

Obey's move for staff scrutiny comes at the expense of greater openness and examination by the public and other lawmakers. That is from AP.

This is from Roll Call: This year despite promises to run the most open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of earmarks.

It is over and over again. Even the press that normally supports them is saying they have made a mistake, they have overreached. We don't need more secrecy in this process. We want things out in the light of day. If I ask for a earmark, I better be proud of it and to have it published, and I am. But they don't want to do that. They want to keep it secret. And then they want to let the staff vet the earmarks, not even the Members. That is not the way to operate the House of Representatives.

Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA11]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Johnson from DeKalb County, spoke just a few minutes ago. I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, a freshman Member doing a great job in this body. Of course he talked about the underlying bill and what is wrong with the bill.

Well, I move to strike the last word in support of the amendment. The gentlelady from Oklahoma, the former lieutenant governor, a long-term lieutenant governor, I think the first ever in the history of the State of Oklahoma, female lieutenant governor, I support her amendment. And I say to the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, there is nothing wrong with the underlying bill, and possibly he is correct. As the subcommittee chairman has said, there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill or traditionally in a Homeland Security bill.

But the problem with the bill is it is an increase up to 14 percent in spending on that particular appropriations bill, 7 percent more than what is in the President's budget, what the President called for.

So as the gentlewoman from Oklahoma knows with her amendment, it is just one more opportunity to try to bring, as she is doing, to bring fiscal responsibility into the process and say some of these programs, you can pick them apart and name certain ones.

We have to have that, but pretty soon, we're talking about $60, $70, $80 billion worth of additional spending that the Democrats are going to bring on the backs of the American taxpayer at the end of this fiscal year, and that's what we're railing against. And I would say that to my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb.

But more than that, Mr. Chairman, much more than that, of course, is this issue of earmarks. I talked to a good supporter from my district just recently, in fact this afternoon, and he reminded me of the outrage at our own party, at our Republican Party, and reminded me that we are in the minority because of not being fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent, losing our brand, if you will, not fulfilling the pledges upon which we took office, indeed upon which the President took office 6 1/2 years ago.

Yes, certainly our party is outraged and we get the message, and that's why we are determined to bring fiscal responsibility to the people's House and this issue of earmarks and all of this pork, the Democrats, the Democratic majority got that majority by railing against maybe the sins of my colleagues in regard to earmarks.

So this is what really it's all about, not particularly that we're opposed to this specific appropriations bill on homeland security. And I think the subcommittee chairman has done a good job, just as the ranking member has.

But Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. Here is what the Democratic majority has an opportunity to do. They can take all of these bills, all of these appropriations bills back to the Rules Committee and bring them to the floor with a closed rule, something that's unprecedented, and I don't think that the majority will do that. I hope they won't do that, but they could.

This is the option I would recommend. I recommended it yesterday when I spoke on another amendment. Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Chairman, has said that he's going to take all of the earmarks that he plans to airdrop in a conference report, where none of the Members will have an opportunity to vote up or down, but he's going to airdrop them, but he is going to shine some sunshine, some daylight, on that by publishing them before the August recess in the

And then who makes a decision? One person. He's not God. He's just chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he makes a decision, well, am I going to airdrop those amendments, yes or no?

Well, I want to suggest once again, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Obey, here is what you can do. All of those earmarks that you publish in that </em><em>Congressional Record before the August recess, you can bring those back.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA11]: Then when we come back from the August recess, he can bundle those all up as a bill or a resolution coming through the Appropriations Committee, having a special rule, hopefully an open rule, bring it to the floor of this House, and then let each and every Member vote those earmarks up or down. And you can have them sectioned off for each of the 11 or 12 appropriation bills.

That's the opportunity that we want to give to the new majority, and I hope the leadership will, in consultation with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a member of almost 40 years of this body, will come to that conclusion, because as one of my colleagues said last night, we don't want to trade in our voting card for a piece of paper and a pen so that we can write a letter.

That's taking away the rights of the minority, but even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it's taking away the rights of the American people. It's unfair. It's not the right thing to do.

And I pledge and plead and beg my colleagues in the majority to do the right thing.

Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we come here this afternoon on the eve of one-quarter of the way through the 110th Congress, and we have to ask ourselves, what now that the Democrats are in control of this House have they wrought? Three things: The largest tax increase in America's history on America's families; secondly, a breaking of the rules and/or their promises; and finally, what we learned last night, slush funds in very important appropriations bills.

If you were listening to this discussion last night, some of our friends on the other side of the aisle, in essence, justified their actions here today with this legislation by looking back to a couple of incidents in the past, back in the 1990s or what have you, and said, well, if it was done in the past, we're going to continue this tradition in the future.

I think the gentleman from Minnesota raised the point before quite accurately. Did they not hear the message that the voters of this country sent in the November election? I can tell you, we heard that message loud and clear.

The American public is tired of politics as usual. The American public is tired of the games in Washington. The American public is tired of changing the rules as you go along just to get your end.

We heard that message, and that is why we came to the floor last night and today. We are not politicizing this. We are just trying to protect the American public on important issues such as homeland security. At the end of the day, we heard. On the other side of the aisle, we thought the other side of the aisle did.

On these three points, tax increases. I have the opportunity and honor of serving on the Budget Committee, and I quite honestly was amazed, after all the hearings that we heard at the beginning of the year about the fiscal constraints we should be living under and the problems that we have, and yet we saw the budget that they presented us at the time of a $392 million tax increase in their original budget would affect everybody with tax increases.

Increase in the marginal rate of $182 billion; reduction in the child tax credit of $27 billion; increase in the marriage penalty of $13 billion; increase in the death tax, $91 billion; increase in the capital gains and dividend tax, $32 billion; other tax increases, $47 billion, all huge numbers. But if you break it right down to the individual family, you know what it comes out to be? Well, the New York Times answered that question.

They said the average family of four living in my area in the State of New Jersey, would see their taxes go up by around $50 or $100 or more. That's what the other side gave us when they gave us the largest tax increase in U.S. history.

Breaking of the record, breaking of promises, breaking of the rules. Well, if you follow what we do here on the floor, you will recall that it was just about a month ago when the other side of the aisle was trying to change the rules of the House that had been put in place as far back as 1820 to allow the minority to have the opportunity to offer motions to recommit and the like in the manner in which we have done in the past, as I say, for over 200 years. We fortunately were able to thwart those moves. We hopefully will be able to thwart their moves now as they try to break the rules again when it comes to transparencies and earmarks and the like.

And finally, when it comes to the third point, slush funds, slush funds? Can you imagine that we're still talking about in this day and age Members from the other side of the aisle creating an appropriation process where there are slush funds, where one Member is going to decide where literally billions and billions of American taxpayers' dollars go?

These are not just my comments as far as the criticism of the other side of the aisle. Let's take a look at what outside individuals and the media are commenting on this.

Public Citizen's Craig Holman said, speaking of what the Democrats are doing, "It violates the whole spirit of the reform itself. We really did expect that earmark requests were going to be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who is requesting what earmark."

Over on CNN, not a conservative network by any means, CNN's John Roberts said, "The question people are asking today is, 'What happened to the Democrats' promise to shed light on the earmarks?' Because this plan as announced seems to do the opposite."

Brianna Keilar, also from CNN, "Democrats now are on the defense with Republicans ..... But advocacy groups say" their actions "still violate the spirit of what Democrats said they would do when they came into power in January."

Mr. Chairman, we are not trivializing this. If anything, the other side of the aisle is trivializing a very important piece of legislation, Homeland Security, an issue that is extremely important to my district, inasmuch as we live in the shadows of the Twin Towers.

Let's hear what the American public says and return civility and the rule of law to the House of Representatives.

Ms. SCHULTZ, WASSERMAN: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, today I rise to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his leadership on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill, and I applaud him and members of the subcommittee who helped craft this bill.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill is a top priority for the country, and it should be a top priority for every Member of this body.

Now, let's be clear. This bill protects the American people on Wall Street and on Main Street, on your street and on my street. We owe it to the American people to provide the highest levels of safety and security possible, and this bill does just that. The legislation will help protect our homes, families and communities from those who would do us harm.

This bill protects our borders. It fully funds the Customs and Border Protection Agency and adds 3,000 new Border Patrol agents to secure our borders.

This bill funds our first responders and provides them with the critical equipment that they need. It ensures that our own local police departments have access to the information and intelligence they need to perform a meaningful role in counterterrorism.

This bill restores the President's cuts to firefighters to ensure that those who protect our homes, our small businesses, our schools and our communities have the resources that they now lack to keep us safe.

The bill restores critical interoperability funding that will allow local police, firefighters and emergency responders to communicate during a crisis.

This bill protects our airports and our airplanes with baggage screening funding, and it protects our ships and seaports with funding for maritime security.

Mr. Chairman, I have my 8-year-old daughter with me this week, and as we observe the antics from my friends across the aisle, I'm reminded of a game that my daughter often plays with her friends called Consequences. Probably each of us has played that game at one time or another, but not when the stakes are as high as they are in this Chamber.

Basically what happens is, each child writes down on cards an event and a consequence of that event. The cards are shuffled and read out loud in a muddled sequence, with one event leading to consequences that then make no sense at all. This is not child's play, and Members of the people's House play the game of Consequences at their peril.

By obstructing this critical bill, they have elevated the politics of pork over the security of the American people.

Mr. Chairman, Republicans should stop playing the political game of consequences and join Democrats in focusing on getting things done and protecting our homeland, because the real consequences of holding up this bill are serious. That is what the election on November 7, 2006, was about.

I was elected in the 109th Congress, and I didn't see any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle leaping to their feet to demand that their name be published next to the appropriations request that they submitted. I didn't see anybody leaping to their feet on the other side of the aisle insisting on reform. Where were the reformers on the other side of the aisle in the 109th, in the 108th, in the 107th, in the 106th? Where were they?

Now, suddenly, they're leaping to their feet, saying to the American people that they know what the election on November 7 was about. Why didn't they do any of this or insist on any of this before now? Because they didn't believe in it.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. SCHULTZ, WASSERMAN: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding. There's a simple fact. We had a strong earmark rule in the last Congress, and we're asking you to reinstate the earmark rule.

Ms. SCHULTZ, WASSERMAN: Reclaiming my time, if you had one, it was not evident. It was absent because one of the main reasons that the people insisted upon putting Democrats in the majority and moving this country in a new direction is because there was an absence of reform here, an absence of oversight, an abdication of the Congress' responsibilities.

And that's why Democrats are in charge. That's why we are making sure that we actually reform the process, put transparency into the appropriations process, own up to the earmarks that we sponsor and make sure that people know what we're asking for when we want to bring home funding to our districts, not do it in the shadows as was the practice up until the 110th Congress.

Rep. Patrick Mchenry [R-NC10]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida. What she said was factually incorrect. The Republican Congress put in a strong earmark reform so the American people can see what we are spending here on this House floor. It's a matter of transparency and openness which the Democrats campaigned upon. What they have done in this whole process is put those earmarks back in the shadows, in the shadows of the chairman's pocket, and the chairman can divvy them up as he sees fit.

That is not the direction we should be moving in, and we are not delaying this bill. What we are doing is having a debate on the size and scope of the government and whether or not we should allow pork-barrel projects to invade our appropriations process or whether or not we should have openness and restrain the size and growth of government. That's what this debate is about, and it's a good debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend from Kentucky for the remainder of my time.

Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4]: I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's somewhat ironic. Listening to the words of the gentlewoman from Florida reminds me of a comment that Machiavelli made centuries ago. He said: "For this is the tragedy of man--circumstances change, but he does not."

It's fascinating that the Democrats ran on a platform of wanting to bring about the most ethical Congress ever, but, frankly, I have to say it's a sham based upon this approach to earmark reform. This is not earmark reform.

In fact, the reason we were here last night, contrary to the comments from the other speakers, was to protect the American people and to protect their right to accountability for every dollar that is spent in this Chamber. Let's look for a moment on the structure of accountability before talking about the validity of earmarks.

Last night, when we asked about the ability to debate specific spending bills, we were told, oh, this is in the guise of transparency, but, of course, you won't be able to vote on the individual earmarks. You can only vote after those have been dropped in after the conference report.

I would have to say this is a most surprising thing. In fact, we were told, with tremendous sincerity on the part of the gentleman from Wisconsin, that, in fact, this would be a wonderful way to protect the people's rights to transparency, and, frankly, wall us completely out of the process.

How is that? Well, I would be able to object to egregious spending. We have seen that in a number of areas through the years on both sides of the aisle. But how would we object to that from my office in Kentucky? I would be able to write a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. In fact, the staff members would make the decision on whether that was a legitimate earmark or not.

I have great respect for the staffs that work at all the committees in our offices and the House. But I would like to remind the gentleman from Wisconsin, the Members from the other side of the aisle, that last November, in the election that they claim the American people chose to have a new direction, I didn't see the name of any staff member from Capitol Hill on a Federal ballot anywhere in the United States.

The people who were elected to uphold and defend the Constitution, who were to make sure that the people's money was spent wisely, were not staff members. The staff members were accountable to elected officials. Ultimately, the elected officials have to make those decisions because we are the ones that were accountable to the people.

What will the public know about these earmarks? All they see of them is at the last minute when we get into a position of simply voting up or down on a conference report where we will not have that ability to debate or to discuss those bills.

In fact, let me be clear about this. I don't think earmarks in and of themselves can be bad. They can be very good, but they should all be subject to public debate here in this Chamber on this floor or in this committee where they can be voted on up or down by a majority of Members clearly making a decision and being accountable for those decisions.

There are many good earmarks: investing in public works, creating jobs that can lay a foundation for future growth. The root of this practice is based on the idea there are many funding priorities very specific and unique to districts or regions of the country that should be decided by our elected officials, not some faceless bureaucrat in Washington, not some person hidden in a cubicle or an office away from the light of scrutiny and accountability.

To say this is bringing an ethical posture to Congress, I beg to differ with that. In fact, I believe what it would do is increase the likelihood of malfeasance on the part of taxpayers' dollars by taking away the direct accountability with Members of Congress.

In the Fourth District, I don't want a faceless bureaucrat to make those decisions. In fact, I am proud of every earmark that I have secured for the Fourth District of Kentucky. I want the people to know that this is how we believe, working with our local leaders, that taxpayer dollars should be reinvested in our communities, how their dollars should be spent that they can see that firsthand and see that return.

However, the process would be significantly improved if every earmark were defined in the bill, their sponsors named and that we have the ability to challenge those and let each Member defend the merits on return and investment to the American taxpayer on each one of them.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful debate. For about 30 years, I hung around courtrooms and watched lawyers talk to juries, and a lot of times lawyers use terminology that people didn't understand.

We just used a ton of terminology, and every once in a while pick up on one or two that I think that maybe newcomers to this House really don't understand, maybe someone else that might be in the House or listening to the House might not understand. I want to talk about some of those things.

First I would like to address, before I do that, I want to point out that we have done an awful lot of talk about history. You know, last year is history.

In fact, yesterday is history. Today is reality and tomorrow, who knows.

But there was just a tirade of numbers thrown out of Congresses just a few months ago. If you want to play that game, then let's take the 40 years prior to the Republicans coming into the majority of Congress and say, what about those 20 Congresses that had the opportunity to reform the appropriations process?

That's a ridiculous argument. That argument carries no water whatsoever. The reality of the problem that we are addressing on earmarks actually came to the forefront when the vast majority of the people that sit in these chairs, in both parties, were surprised by the activities of a few who violated their sacred trust to the United States Government.

We had an election where all of us got painted with the brush of that few. But the reality is, the vast majority of people on this side of the aisle, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, were shocked to disbelief over some of the things that occurred with Members of the Congress, and are continuing to occur, to come to light. Recently, we had light spread on another shocking event that we have had here in Congress.

You know, the nature of democracy is that problems leap up in your face, and you react to those problems. We have had leap into our face that secretism when dealing with money causes people like Jack Abramoff to end up in prison, and those that may be associated possibly end up in prison.

If you look and study what happened, it's all secret things. That's the real offense we are talking about, when we say let's let daylight in on this earmark process. A term that we have used a lot is airdrop, but most people think airdrop, plane, parachute, that drops it in.

What we are really talking about is once a process goes through the House and the Senate, bills come to a conference committee, which is made up of representatives of both bodies. It is in a closed room behind closed doors where the bills are worked out to where they can get a compromise that both bodies can then vote on.

When we refer to airdrops, these are these expenditures and appropriation bills that when it comes back to this body, if we can dig through and find it, we go, where in the heck did that come from? We can't find any record anywhere of anybody talking about that in the Senate of the House. There it is. Where did that come from? So it's like it dropped out of thin air.

I think that's where the term "airdrop" gets its meaning. It's that when the Members of this body and the other body look at the final product and say where did that come from.

I think the proposal that's being made by the majority on their new earmark reform, by its very definition, creates a large body. We hear 31,000 possible "where did that come from" from for every Member of this body, except maybe one and some staffers who, some believe, are more competent than the Members of this body.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Carter was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, when we had these scandals, and we had the debate last term of Congress about this airdropping, this appropriations process, the public asked us to put what we were doing under a microscope and then let them see it.

That's what we are doing today. That's what we are going to continue to do until the whole process is visible and out in the daylight, and that's what this is all about.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter [D-CO7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Homeland Security appropriation, and I would just have to say the word "irony" has been used by both sides of the aisle quite a bit. I think the irony here is that the Republican side of the aisle is trying to do what they did last year, which is not to pass a budget, not to pass appropriations and try to bring this country to a halt by delaying, delaying, delaying.

Well, that's fine and dandy for them to play those kinds of games, but this country expects a change. It voted for a change in direction. It voted for strong national security, which this bill reflects and represents.

This bill reflects and represents protection on our borders, protection on our ports. We have additions to FEMA so that we have protection and response to natural disasters. Instead, our friends would like to stall and hold this Chamber hostage because they can't get the pork they want. They want their pork, and they want to eat it too.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is wrong. This stalling tactic has got to stop. This Nation deserves much better than what we are seeing from the Republican side of the aisle.

They would like us to ignore the fact that billions of dollars are missing in Iraq under their administration and under their leadership. They would like us to forget the fact that there were sweetheart deals to Halliburton and to many others where there was no bid and no contracts.

They would like the country to forget history, which has brought this country into the biggest debt that we have ever seen. They would rather talk about earmarks, which they really mean to be pork, because they aren't going to get their pork. They aren't going to get their bridge to nowhere because we are not going to let them have that. We will fight for the American people every day, as long as it takes.

We are here because of guys like Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Ney, Mark Foley. Those are the individuals that helped create a Democratic majority because people were tired of it, and they wanted a change in direction.

We're going to change the focus of this Congress and this Nation from what the Republicans did, which was the wealthiest 1 percent to the hardworking people in the middle. We passed a minimum wage law. We passed bills out of here to reduce the cost of prescription drugs under Medicare part D. We are focused, ladies and gentlemen, under this bill on the national security of the United States of America.

Instead, our friends on the other side are focused on pork and their bridges to nowhere.

This is a travesty; this is a delaying tactic. This is not in the interests of the United States of America. I support this bill and ask for an "aye" vote.

Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Before I speak, I would like to just share one thing. The gentleman who was just speaking reminds me again of the comment that Machiavelli made that the tragedy of man is that circumstances change, but he does not.

And in all of this rhetoric, I would remind the gentleman we were actually debating a Homeland Security bill, I haven't heard one person answer our reasoned arguments to ask them to defend the appropriations chairmen or the Speaker's approach to earmarks by taking them off the floor and out of committee and removing them from debate and accountability.

I happened to be in the meetings last year where the Republican conference was at work to move to improve the accountability. Certainly, I believe in complete transparency of records, and we have heard nobody defend the chairman's position on this.

I have heard no Democrat get up and defend the chairman's position on earmarks at all. They want to use ad hominem arguments, talk about yesterday. I think the gentleman is right: what happened yesterday, in fact, is history.

So far, to make this the most ethical House in history, I would think that openness and transparency would improve accountability, and not simply contribute to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We talk a lot about that, but I think that a lot has been created inadvertently from the other side.

The issue is not whether earmarks themselves, it's not whether earmarks themselves are good or bad. It's simply having a mechanism for accountability for the American people so that they can see that.

One perfect example is a large project of national and regional significance that's in my district that affects 71 congressional districts. We worked together in a bipartisan manner through the 109th Congress to secure all of the funding necessary to the lead-up to the construction of the Brent Spence bridge on I-75 that connects Northern Kentucky and Cincinnati. This was not a Republican or Democrat project, it was an American project where many, many Members, ranging from south Florida, all the way to the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, up into the Northeast saw their districts, their industries, their jobs affected by that meaningful investment in infrastructure that would benefit the Nation as a whole.

We wanted that accountability. We debated it in public. We talked about it repeatedly. We made the case not only to one another in the House, but to the American people, that there would be a return on investment.

And I think, at the end of the day, that's the real key. Projects like that are not bridges to nowhere. Projects like that in the full disclosure of the light of day show a proper stewardship of the tax resources of the American people that are given to us to spend. But to take it away and not answer the fundamental question, to say that these are tactics to stall for pork, I would respectfully disagree with the comments that have been made, because nobody has defended the fundamental question that accountability, in fact, has been taken away and removed.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stated on March 17, 2006 that "before Members vote on the bill, there should be an appropriate time for people to be able to read it, that it be a matter of public record. And if there's an earmark that can stand the scrutiny, then that transparency will give the opportunity for it to be there."

Unfortunately, moving to a concept of omnibus bills or dropping them in at the conference where there's not that room for debate or discussion, I think it creates opportunities that, I won't go so far as to suggest that there's an issue with integrity, but more importantly, as a businessman, as somebody who was a consultant helping companies to maximize their investments, their productivity, to keep their jobs and to grow, there's a greater risk of redundancy. There's a greater risk of waste. There's a greater risk of less efficient ways to go about solving the problem in a particular region.

The benefit of debate and the benefit of dialogue is to give us a synergy that, at the end of the day, will give us results that will benefit the American people. And I think that we've been trusted with the people's money.

This legislation, today, the structure and the reason that we have been put into a position where we have to exercise process to force this debate, is no different than what happened a month ago when a germaneness rule, where the minority had the opportunity to offer alternative opinions that had been in place since 1822; folks who stated that they were respecters of the institution moved to strike that rule, and we were simply informed an hour before it was going to go into effect, and we exercised our rights through procedure to remove all unanimous consent and to move to a place where this had to be brought into the light of day because of the opportunities that were given for Members before.

At the end of the day, that was wisely repealed that there could be some degree of comity and debate. In this same vein now, I think it's important that, rather than returning to the politics of yesteryear, of a bygone era, I think what we need to do is move forward in a spirit of openness.

We live in an information world that's interconnected and open and gives access. Let's give the people access to all the earmarks. Give it to them early. Let Members on both sides of the aisle stand by their projects, justify them to the American people.

Chair: The time of the gentleman has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Davis of Kentucky was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Geoff Davis [R-KY4]: And with that, at the end of the day, what we come up with is not a majority or minority solution, not a Democrat or Republican or liberal or conservative solution. We come up with an American solution that optimizes the resources that we are entrusted with by the American people.

Rep. Bennie Thompson [D-MS2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it's been 5 years since the Department of Homeland Security was established. November's election demonstrated that the Nation agreed with the Democrats' new direction for America.

In the movie A Few Good Men, Tom Cruise asked Jack Nicholson for the truth. Nicholson's response: You can't handle the truth.

Mr. Chairman, can the minority handle the truth? I submit to you today that the minority cannot, in fact, handle the truth. Mr. Chairman, the truth is that the minority can hear the heart of the American people no more than they could before November.

Truth is, Mr. Obey has made this process way more transparent than it was under the minority's watch. The truth is, we have much more of an efficient process. Most importantly, the truth is that there are no earmarks in this bill that we're debating here today.

The appropriations measure has been on the floor for 12 hours and still counting. Eight motions for the committee to rise later, the minority continues to stifle progress, the minority continues to foster trivial debate to defer and deter us from our mission.

Perhaps the minority's not in touch with the interests of our Nation. The Nation is interested in leadership that remembers not to forget. The Nation is looking for leadership that remembers 9/11, leadership that remembers Katrina, leadership that realizes that there are still vulnerabilities that we need to address to prevent the next terrorist attack or natural disaster.

Chairman Price has showed leadership by addressing these issues in this bill, as my committee addressed in H.R. 1, 1401 and 1684.

We owe Department employees, we owe the Department's management, and we owe our great country the passage of this appropriations measure.

Mr. Chairman, I invite my colleagues in the majority to join me as chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee in passing a measure that brings us one step closer to protecting this Nation.

Homeland security is not a partisan issue. Mr. Chairman, it's an American issue. If we agree on that, then let's end this obstruction and pass this bill.

Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just say that American ingenuity and civic involvement have come forward again. The American people are a creative and involved people. And I have here a letter from a blog site called porkbusters.org; let me just read you a couple of sentences from this blog site.

"As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in human history. By releasing your 32,000 earmark request publicly, I, and other taxpayers across the country could work together in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of Federal funding, and which may have value to the taxpayers.

"Thanks for your consideration of this matter. I and millions of my fellow taxpayers across America stand ready to help you evaluate these 32,000 earmark requests. After all, we are the ones who are paying for these requested projects; the least we can do is help you evaluate their merit."

We have volunteers now coming forward that are willing to help the overworked staff on appropriations that apparently do not have the time to look at these earmarks, and haven't had time over the last several months. Although we've had time for a lot of other things to do, but we haven't had time for that. So volunteers are now coming forward, and the American people are standing ready and they will be willing to help.

And on another note, I would just like to give a question to the colleagues I have on the other side of the aisle. I hear a lot of discussion about what's in the bill. And the bill has many good things. No one's denying that. There are some problems with the bill. The bill has some really good projects in it.

But why not talk about the earmark process that amounts to doing it in secret, that amounts to doing earmarks in the month of August when we're out of session, when we can't debate it, when it's going to be done in conference committee? We will not have a chance to vote one by one on these earmarks.

And you know that, generally speaking, past history is that the earmarks will be passed. Even when they're challenged, even when they're brought into the sunshine. They will, generally speaking, be passed. So really what do you have to be afraid of? They're probably going to pass anyway, unfortunately, even the most egregious ones. So you really have nothing to fear, and you really don't need to hide them, but you're doing so anyway, and I think that that's wrong.

Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]: I thank the gentlelady, and I'll consume just a portion of the time.

First off, to the gentleman from the other side of the aisle asking what truth is, and he went through a litany of truths, I ask, are his truths the same truths as America's truths when it comes to what is occurring here?

And as the gentleman behind me from Michigan, who is often quoting lyrics of music from Jesus Christ Superstar, are truths not unchanging law? And in this case, I would suggest that they are. Your laws are constantly being changed, or I should say your rules are constantly being broken that you implement and that you promise. So your truths are simply truths based upon laws that have been rules that you decide in November you're going to promise and then later on break.

As I've said each time that I come to this floor, what has this Congress under the Democrat leadership brought us? The largest tax increase in U.S. history; a breaking of the rules, so that now we see that they can change their definition of truths; and as we learned last night, surpluses, or rather, hidden fees and funds within these accounts as well.

But the point that I wanted to make at this point is to a point that the chairman raised last night, and that is to the difficulty of actually trying to address these earmarks. He said that they would rely upon the staff of his committee to effectuate this.

While I think we all take our hats off and commend the work of his committee. The staffers for the Appropriations Committee are probably some of the best and the brightest that this House has. These Members of the Appropriations Committee are also the same Members who appropriate their own salaries, for that matter. That committee is charged with the responsibility of bringing these facts not only to the House, but to the American public as well.

If the truth is that they are unable to perform their job, perhaps they can look outside this Chamber for assistance. I have a letter here of an organization, a good government organization, that made such an offer. Tim Phillips from Americans for Prosperity indicated to Chairman Obey just a week ago, realizing what he had heard as well from Chairman Obey that he is having difficulty, as he said, the extra time "to evaluate the 36,000-plus earmark requests that have been submitted to the Appropriations Committee this year."

The chairman says, I think we have a hell of a lot more ability than the individual working alone to do it, referencing the staff.

Well, Mr. Phillips, of American Prosperity came up with, I think, an appropriate manner or way to address these problems, if his committee and his staff and himself are not able to get this job done on time as the American public wants him to. May I read from the letter which says, "I think that the thousands, the millions of individual taxpayers, working together, could greatly aid you in completing your earmark request evaluation before you resort to sticking earmarks into unamendable final legislation behind the closed doors of a conference committee. That's why, on behalf of thousands of Americans for Prosperity members from coast to coast, I'm writing to offer our help to you and your staff in evaluating this year's earmark request."

You know, it's interesting. The chairman said last night that it would take literally weeks, if not months, to get the job done if they were to start right now. I think we have to ask the question, why are we even considering them starting right now? Why haven't they started weeks ago on this matter?

Let me get back to the letter. "As you know, Internet technology has made research faster and easier than at any previous time in history." This is the crux of the argument. "By releasing your 36,000 earmark requests to Americans for Prosperity, our allies and other taxpayer groups, and to concerned citizens around the country, we will be able to unleash taxpayers across the country in a cooperative effort to determine which Members of Congress may have financial conflicts attached to their earmark requests, which local projects may be unworthy of Federal funding and which may be of value to the taxpayer."

He thanks him for the consideration, the members of Americans for Prosperity, millions of taxpayers who stand ready to help to evaluate those 36,000 earmark requests because, after all, it is those millions of American taxpayers, they're the ones, at the end of the day, who are going to be responsible for paying for those requests.

The least that we can do in this House is, if the chairman and his committee and his side of the aisle cannot get the job done, the least we can do is turn over that responsibility and seek the assistance of the American taxpayer.

Chair: The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ5]: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Chair: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oklahoma will be postponed.

The Clerk read as follows:

Chair: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA2]: Mr. Chairman, I introduce an amendment today to highlight the importance of State and local law enforcement participation in immigration enforcement.

The intent of this amendment is to fully fund the President's budget request of $26.4 million for State and local law enforcement support for the training and support for the voluntary participation of local law enforcement officers and immigration law enforcement as authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

This program is designed to enhance cooperation and communication between Federal, State, and local law enforcement in identifying and removing criminal illegal aliens. Under 287(g), ICE provides State and local law enforcement with the training and authorization to identify; process; and, when appropriate, detain immigration offenders they encounter during their regular daily law enforcement activity.

It is very important to note that the 287(g) program is not used for rounding up illegal aliens in random street operations. This program is targeted specifically for those individuals who pose a significant threat to public safety and national security. Additionally, the 287(g) program is not used to determine the legal status of witnesses and victims of crime. Officers in the 287(g) program are trained to respect the status of witnesses and victims involved in a criminal case in order to ensure the integrity of our criminal justice system.

Currently, the 287(g) program is implemented in 13 jurisdictions. Perhaps the jurisdiction with the greatest success in this program is Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. In just 12 months, Sheriff Jim Pendergraph has been able to identify and deport nearly 1,900 criminal illegal aliens, most of whom had been previously ordered deported by an immigration judge. This program is working and the demand for participation among the States is increasing.

And in the report accompanying this appropriations bill, the committee has acknowledged the importance of identifying criminal illegal aliens while incarcerated in our State and local jails. Participation in the 287(g) program can rectify that problem.

Immigration enforcement is clearly a Federal responsibility. It is the Federal Government's primary duty to ensure the safety and security of its citizens. But we cannot do it alone. We need the assistance of our State and local law enforcement who encounter these issues on a daily basis.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, to offer some comments on this amendment.

The amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Virginia would reduce the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Management Account by $10.4 million and reallocate $9.1 million of the funds to the ICE 287(g) program. Because of the differences in outlays, the remaining $1.3 million cannot be used.

Now, as we have said on this floor many times in the last 18 hours of debate, our Republican friends seem determined to trash the front offices at the Department of Homeland Security. They rail against bureaucrats. They have no regard for the President's requests for those front offices. The fact is that the Under Secretary for Management funding is critical for the Department of Homeland Security to ensure that it develops its new headquarters in a consolidated way and that it does its job.

But if our friends on the Republican side of the aisle are not going to defend their own administration's needs in this regard, let alone their budget requests, I and my colleagues here are not inclined to do so. So our colleagues will need to look at this amendment and maybe they will want to support it, the source of funding notwithstanding.

Let me say something about the recipient of these funds, the 287(g) program. Now, the ICE 287(g) program does require additional funding next year, and it requires additional funding because of the emphasis that we are placing in our bill on the necessity of ICE's getting serious about preventing the release of prisoners, people who have committed serious crimes, who are deportable, permitting the release of those people back out on the streets. It is just outrageous that criminals who have been convicted, who have committed serious crimes in this country are being put out on the street without their status even being checked.

So we do have in this bill a requirement for ICE to contact every prison, jail, and correctional facility in this country on a monthly basis to identify removable criminal aliens. And we have provided a good deal of additional 287(g) funding to enroll correctional facilities in this program and to provide training and technical support to participants so they can provide accurate and actionable data to ICE agents.

So we have tripled ICE's funding. We have tripled ICE's funding. We have more than tripled the amounts provided in fiscal year 2007, that was $5.4 million, to $17.3 million in fiscal year 2008. Now, we think that is sufficient to enable ICE to undertake these duties as well as to carry on its existing functions because, first of all, it is a tripling in funding. Secondly, the Department has yet to obligate more than half of a $50 million appropriation made in 2006 for this program. It has not yet been obligated.

I have to say to my colleagues that as far as the 287(g) program is concerned, the availability of funding is not the issue. Trying to increase participation rates is the issue. But it is not just a matter of throwing money at the problem, as our friends like to say.

So ICE is going to take on, we hope and believe, significant new responsibilities. We have provided funding to accomplish that, and we are also, of course, assuming that the Department is going to obligate that $50 million that is sitting there already.

Now, our colleague has offered an amendment to provide yet more funding for ICE, funding that it is not clear to me that she has really analyzed how and when the funding can be used. But if she wishes to take yet another bite out of her own administration's front office accounts at Homeland Security, then, again, she can be our guest.

I do want my colleagues to know, though, that we are serious about this prison program. We think of all the priorities in terms of deportation, this is at the top of the list. It is a major feature of our bill. ICE is going to be directed to undertake this as a top priority. We know it will require funding. We have provided the funding, and perhaps in the best of all worlds this additional funding contained in this amendment would help this function be performed even more effectively. That would be a positive way to look at it, and for that reason we will not be opposing the amendment.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have some concerns about the offset, but I believe this amendment will help restore balance to ICE's enforcement resources as well as the agency's support for State and local officials. As I said when we opened this debate, I believe a fiscally responsible funding level includes sufficient resources to carry out all legislative functions and directions.

This amendment helps to restore some balance of resources to meet the bill's mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility across the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens that can be deported and to initiate those deportation proceedings. That mandate is a lofty goal. Over 5,000 local and State jails and detention facilities that you have got to contact monthly and talk to the jailers who are State or local officials and are not being paid to help you with this, it is an unfunded mandate, and who are also not qualified to judge whether or not a person that is incarcerated is an illegal alien. It is not their job, and they are not trained for it. So that is going to be a difficult goal to implement and one that is unfunded but, I think, worthwhile.

So I remain concerned that the bill presupposes that ICE can simply redirect resources from some other vital criminal investigation or fugitive operation to meet this unfunded mandate. I mean, ICE is understaffed as it is with personnel out there. You take a lot of personnel off of what they are doing now to check with every jail in the country, 2,000 of which hardly have any incarcerated aliens in them anyway, and you have got to take that personnel off of fugitive operations, catching people who are not in jail who are rapists and murderers and thieves, and deport them.

So the bottom line is we have got to have some more money for ICE to do this new chore. In fact, the bill even suggests resources can be drawn from the 287(g) program to meet this mandate. But then the bill reduces funding for that very program by almost 30 percent below the request.

So restoring the $9.1 million cut in the 287(g) program will provide additional funds to help State and local correctional facilities at the ID and processing of illegal aliens, the very priority the bill is trying to force. In fact, over 40 percent of the local law enforcement officers trained to date through the 287(g) program are from jails and correctional facilities in States like Florida, Arizona, Alabama, North Carolina, California.

Look at some of the notable results from the ICE's 287(g) program.

I am quoting from the Nashville City Paper printed April 24. "If the first week's worth of figures hold up, the number of illegal immigrants deported in the first year of the national 287(g) program would be more than 4,200, or equal to 11 percent of Nashville's total, legal and illegal, Hispanic population, according to a City Paper analysis of the first batch of 287(g) immigration enforcement data."

Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program is too vital a program in the fight to secure our borders to accept the bill's $9.1 million cut.

I urge Members to support the Drake amendment.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, we have learned from the recent devastation of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as Tropical Storm Allison, which devastated my city of Houston in 2001, that severe consequences can result from not having the proper hurricane preparedness plans and outreach efforts in place prior to such a disaster.

In my own district in Houston, and in New Orleans, and in communities throughout America, we have personally seen firsthand that minorities, the elderly, the disabled and impoverished populations have not been adequately prepared for the upcoming hurricane seasons or, in fact, hurricane seasons in the past.

I am particularly dismayed that these vulnerable populations have not been targeted by outreach efforts communicating the need to prepare for a major hurricane or other natural disaster. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck some of America's most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities. Even rural communities have suffered from the lack of focus on emergency preparedness, communities which are just now beginning to find their feet again after these devastating storms.

National, State and local governments have not fulfilled their responsibility to ensure that they are not, once again, left to face nature's wrath alone. My colleague from Minnesota, Representative JIM RAMSTAD, has stated that the disaster in the gulf coast region exposed the enormous gaps in the emergency planning preparedness and management for people with disabilities. We desperately need to fill these gaps.

Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer an amendment to H.R. 2638, the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2008, that would have provided an additional $5 million to FEMA to support emergency preparedness outreach and program efforts for vulnerable communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged.

However, money does not answer all questions, and I would be willing to forgo offering my amendment if the chairman would be willing to work with me to ensure that FEMA makes specific efforts to engage those most vulnerable members of our communities in programs that would involve the necessary preparedness, education, training and awareness that is necessary to prepare our communities.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: I thank the gentlelady from Texas for raising this important issue. I will be happy to work with you on it. I want to thank you for your leadership on the issue. I agree with you, as the chairman of a Homeland Security subcommittee, that much more must be done to engage our communities about the need to be prepared for all types of disasters and that special efforts are required to engage the most vulnerable members of our communities. It is a very valuable focus that you brought to this.

So that's why we fund FEMA's management and administration account at $685 million, $150 million above the current fiscal year. FEMA has told us of its plans to engage in this type of preparedness effort. We intend to monitor that. We strongly support it.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, I thank you.

I am aware of dedicated community activists that have stepped forward to fill the void left by Federal, State and local governments. Currently, FEMA's national preparedness director only has an acting deputy administrator rather than the permanent leadership this office requires. Further, this administrator testified before our Homeland Security Subcommittee that our national strategy for citizen preparedness must be rooted in strong local efforts to integrate citizens and communities, and requires locally or regionally developed plans to address each community's unique risk and capabilities.

He also testified to the need for utilizing volunteer services, since there are not enough emergency responders to take care of everyone in every location during the most critical time.

I understand the chairman believes there are funds available in the legislation for FEMA to reach out to these State and local activists and groups to provide them with the resources that they need to continue their vitally important work, and to work to ensure that the absolute debacle that we saw 2 years ago before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina is never allowed to happen again. One such activist is Mr. Charles X. White, who has worked tirelessly to provide much-needed resources for Houston's vulnerable communities.

In light of predictions of a devastating hurricane season this year, we must take action to ensure that those who are reaching neglected segments of our American population are adequately funded, including these vulnerable populations, racial, ethnic, disabled, elderly and others.

I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, on report language as this bill goes forward, to ensure that hurricane preparedness outreach to vulnerable communities is a priority for FEMA.

Chair: The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Rep. David Price [D-NC4]: I thank the gentlewoman. I will be happy to work with her on report language.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: I thank the distinguished chairman for his work on this legislation, this appropriations bill. And I thank you on behalf of the vulnerable communities across America who may be facing a tough hurricane or man-made disaster season.

We need FEMA to focus their attention. I thank the gentleman for his work and his support.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady of Virginia, and also in support of the 287(g) program.

I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning our program in Nashville, Tennessee, and talking a little bit about that. He gave us some information about why this program works. I would like to expand on that for just a couple of minutes, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a couple of minutes of remarks.

The program in Nashville, the 287(g) program there, is working. We understand that it yields results. You heard about the first week's results from this program.

Now, the reason we need to put our money where our mouth is and the reason the funding needs to support the language in the bill is because this is a program that saves local governments money. And it works. And there is a waiting list to get into this program.

Now, a follow-up on the comments that the ranking member made from the June 10 issue of the Nashville Tennesseean. Fifteen deputies from the Davidson County department underwent training, and now they check the immigration status of every foreign-born person that is booked to that jail.

Also, they have 213 inmates that were held on immigration orders during the program's first 45 days. It is a sharp increase from the 151 metro jail prisoners subjected to immigration holds in the year of 2006. This is paying for itself. It is getting results. That is why this program deserves to be fully funded.

At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his 2 minutes of remarks.

Rep. Eric Cantor [R-VA7]: I thank the gentlelady. And I want to commend the committee for bringing this bill forward, but really take some difference in the remarks that were made regarding the gentlelady from Virginia's amendment on the 287(g) program. I couldn't think of anything that would be more effective in helping us enforce the law in the interior of this country than additional funds for this program.

As some of the speakers prior to me have said, we need all hands on deck as far as the criminal population that has made its way into this country. We need the ability to go after these criminals, in the words of the gentleman from Kentucky, these rapists, these murderers and these thieves. And there is no more effective way to identify them than to empower the folks, the first responders that are on the ground in our communities across this country.

Now, some of the words from the gentleman of North Carolina, the chairman of the subcommittee, were that, in fact, we have too much money in this program and it hasn't been used, and, in fact, they are unobligated funds. Well, then I would say to the gentleman and to my colleagues that we haven't done our job, because we have got to do our job to put the vision out there that we intend to get serious about the illegal immigration population, especially those that are criminals in this country.

The American people expect us to enforce the law. This vehicle allows the Federal Government to step up to the plate to provide local law enforcement and our agencies at home the necessary resources and the tools with which to identify and apprehend the illegal population that has run afoul of our law in the interior of this country.

Not more than a month ago we saw the individuals in New Jersey; we saw them apprehended, planning a terrorist attack on Fort Dix in that State. Later, we come to find out that those individuals had had various run-ins with the law, and in fact, combined, 75 times had been involved with some type of either traffic violation or other criminal interdiction, but yet these individuals were never identified as being illegal.

We have got to make sure that that scenario is not repeated. We have got to empower the most powerful force we've got, which is that on the grounds and in our local community.

So I would urge my colleagues to join the gentlelady from Virginia Beach in making sure that we adequately fund this program and insist that our local law enforcement agencies have the necessary tools and the resources that they need to assist in enforcing the law.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And to both Members, there are just a few thousand ICE agents, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officials.

Chair: The time of the gentlewoman has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Blackburn was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: If 287(g) would provide the training and the authority for the local law enforcement to do just as the gentleman has said, think of the law enforcement power that can be brought to bear on the severe problem the country faces of getting rid of convicts in the penitentiaries, as well as fugitives on the run and on the lam, and raping and plundering and robbing in the country. I think it's as simple as ABC. I don't know why we don't do more of it.

I thank the gentlelady.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]: Mr. Chairman, precisely, there are 13 jurisdictions that have this program. It works. We need this Nation right. The cop on the beat needs the information to get to these criminals that are on our streets.

Let's fully fund the 287(g). We're looking at $36.3 billion. There is money to do this right and be a good steward of our taxpayers' money.

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the last word.

I rise on this issue with just some concern here that we don't lose perspective of what we're really trying to accomplish.

This was an issue brought up in the committee, probably the most popular issue of all, which was that we wanted ICE, which is the second largest law enforcement agency in the country next to the FBI, at the rate it's growing, it's going to be bigger than the FBI, we wanted them to do their job of being able to determine whether people who had been arrested at the local level and were in jail, maybe not yet sentenced, but were pending trial or were being held, that somebody would review their legal status.

The question is that this program that we are debating and wanting to put more money into, and frankly, the committee doubled the amount of money that's going into it, which is a grant program to local governments, not all local governments are keen on wanting to do this. Why? Because they have emphasized what they call "community policing."

They want the local law enforcement officer to be a friend of the community in order to be involved with the community, to have communities trust them. And if they think that the local law enforcement is also the Border Patrol, they are going to shut up and stop talking to cops. And you get all kinds of issues with this, particularly when it comes to children who are afraid of law enforcement, and so on, if they are the ones that are going to arrest their moms and dads.

So, let's put this into some perspective. What we really need to do is make sure that the ICE, the Federal law enforcement, does their job. Why? Because they are trained.

I have a note here from my sheriff saying that the ICE comes to our jails in Monterey County, a small rural county in California, three times a week. He said the number of confirmed, undocumented prison inmates varies. Last quarter, there were 52 identified undocumented inmates in Monterey County. The previous quarter there were also 52; prior to that, 72.

Some of the inmates claim citizenship status or legal permanent residency and don't have their documentation order. It takes some time to label them and do all that legal background work.

That is not what the legal background work is. We have that information. That is Federal information.

As we pointed out before, we have no national ID. None of you in here can prove you are an American citizens by any card you carry in your wallet, unless you want to show your voting card, but they won't accept that in the airport so I don't know what valid status that has.

The point here is, let's not stop making ICE do their job. They should be doing these local jail checks. If you want to do additional training for local jailers, that is fine. That is what this program is about. But don't substitute it so the local government has to do it, because I think you ought to believe that criminal management up to your local elected officials, your sheriffs and your police chiefs, to make that decision.

This is the second largest police force in the United States. It ought to be doing jail checks. They are the ones that have the qualifications to look into the Federal Information Bank to see whether these people are properly documented, and I think we ought to make sure that they do their job.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say the gentleman is absolutely right. We have to separate what ICE does from local law enforcement. This is trying to backdoor immigration reform. We really need, not piecemeal immigration reform, if we are going to do it.

ICE, in relation with the jails, that works. Make sure the incarcerated criminals are tracked in the right direction. But to go into neighborhoods using local law enforcement that is now using ICE money to train them really, I think, undermines the law enforcement system in that community, and law-abiding citizens who would be willing to help solve a crime are now being victimized.

If we are going to do immigration reform, let's do it. Let's do it in the right way. But let's not manipulate local law enforcement, who in fact have made official statements on the record that they would prefer not to be engaged in Federal immigration work.

So I thank the gentleman for the point that he has made, and I hope that this body will get down at some point to a reasonable and rational response to the problems of the immigration system.

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment has been accepted. I am just concerned that we still need to put pressure on ICE to do the real jail checks.

Rep. Virginia Brown-Waite [R-FL5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, when I talk to my local sheriffs back home, one of whom actually burned out the battery on my cell phone, what they want to do is do what people expect them to do, and that is help the very overtaxed, no pun intended, ICE employees who are out there trying to apprehend the criminals, the criminal illegal aliens.

In Florida, we were able to train 35 State and local law enforcement people under this program, under the 287(g) program. It is a good program, and, believe me, it is very much wanted by many local sheriffs, sheriffs who also get elected like we do and who get frustrated when ICE is unable to come to the jail with the frequency that they need to, who are frustrated because the citizens want illegals who have criminal records, they want them off the streets, off their lawns, and they want to once again be able to reclaim their communities, very often, from a lot of illegal activity.

The 13 jurisdictions that use the 287(g) program are very happy with it. We need to adequately fund it, and I commend my colleague from Virginia for introducing this amendment. It is a good amendment and one that I think the American people certainly would want to have well-funded because of its efficacy.

Again, I commend the gentlewoman.

Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in my other life, before coming to Congress, I spent 22 years on the criminal court bench in Houston, Texas, trying all kinds of criminals. During that experience, I learned a lot about the way the world really is.

It is unfortunate that, in the society we live in, the Immigration Service cannot protect the United States as far as interior enforcement goes. There aren't enough interior enforcement agents to track down people who are illegally in the system. When I say "in the system," I am talking about the criminal justice system.

What happens too often is a person is arrested for a crime. He is put in jail. The person is illegally in the United States, but nobody knows about that. They are sentenced to some term in jail or in prison. They get out, and they continue to stay in the United States illegally. That continues to be a problem, especially in big jurisdictions like Houston, Texas, where I am from.

They are committing more crimes, yes. The last three peace officers in the City of Houston that have been shot, Mr. Speaker, were all shot by people illegally in the United States. Two of those individuals had been arrested several times and yet kept being released. The problem breaks down in the local jails.

It needs to be clear that this program, the 287(g) program that is being funded and that we are asking more funds to be appropriated for, is voluntary. Cities are not required to participate.

Sanctuary cities, and we know what cities they are, that harbor illegals, they won't participate. They don't have to participate. But not all cities in the United States are sanctuary cities.

Some cities want to help clean up the crime problem in their neighborhoods. One way they can do it is to receive Federal funds, going to local law enforcement, who know best about policing and who the people are in the area and what criminals they are; to track those individuals illegally in the country and make sure they are legally deported back where they came from. We find that it works, and it works very well.

For example, in local jails, sheriffs use the 287(g) program to find out who foreign gang members are, like the MS-13 gang members. Once they are in custody, they can determine who those individuals are, that they are illegally in the United States, and, as soon as they are released from jail, which happens to all of them, rather than be released back on the streets of our cities, they will be deported back where they came from.

Now that doesn't seem to happen as much as it should. We have "catch and release" of illegals in our county jail system. Then we got to go catch them again and then try to have them deported after some crime is committed.

So I think it is wise to use the 750,000 local peace officers in the United States, those peace officers that want to participate in the 287(g) program, train them with Federal funds and allow them to police their own jails and their neighborhoods so that people who are convicted of criminal conduct, that are illegally in the United States, once they are captured, we can deport them rather than continue to release them back on our streets.

So I want to commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for proposing this important amendment asking for more funds for local law enforcement to do their job. Obviously, the Federal Government cannot, has not done its job in protecting interior enforcement, and I think it is a wise use of money to allow local law enforcement to do so.

Rep. Dave Reichert [R-WA8]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to fully fund ICE's request of $26.4 million for its 287(g) program. Let's just get down to sort of the cop's nitty gritty here.

Just 2 1/2 years ago, I left the King County Sheriff's Office as the sheriff in Seattle, Washington, an 1,100-employee organization with a $110 million budget. I started in 1972 as a 21-year-old police officer in a patrol car for about 5 years. I worked in the jail, and I worked as a property crimes detective, and for the most part of my career, I was a homicide investigator. I worked with all kinds of communities.

All the different diverse communities that we serve across this Nation exist in King County, Seattle, Washington. I understand the theory of the Community Oriented Policing program. We implemented that program in the King County Sheriff's Office. It is one of those programs that really comes natural to a police officer working on the streets in their patrol car. They want to connect with their community. They want to be friends with their community, as mentioned earlier by my colleague across the aisle.

Part of the Community Oriented Policing program is to make friends and engage in conversation and build relationships, but it is also our job as law enforcement officers, local law enforcement officers across this Nation, to enforce the law. Sometimes we make friends doing that. We save lives doing that. But sometimes we make enemies.

In the process of making friends and making enemies and protecting our neighborhoods, we also build partnerships with those communities, but we also build partnerships beyond that. We build partnerships with the Federal Government. We build partnerships with the FBI, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, with DEA, with ICE, with Border Patrol. I could go on and on and on with the Federal agencies that join in concert, in partnership, with local law enforcement every day.

In Federal task force organizations, like the Joint Analytical Centers, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the Violent Offenders Task Force, the VICAP Program, and I could go on and on and on with Federal agencies and Federal programs and Federal task forces that come together; it is about partnerships between local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement. And it is about training, joint training, with each of these agencies so that we can get our job done, that we can protect this country.

I understand that. I worked as a partner with the Federal agencies when I wore a police uniform on the street. I worked with as a partner with Federal agencies as I wore my suit and tie and my uniform as the sheriff for 8 years in King County. These partnerships are essential. They create a seamless web, a seamless web of sharing information across all spectrums of the Federal, local, State law enforcement.

There is no undermining of the local police department when partnerships are created with the Federal Government. It is an uplifting and exciting experience to work with all of these agencies and train together to finally learn what each one of us does and what we can bring to the table as a team as we protect our country.

So Homeland Security now, as a fairly new agency with 22 departments, is another one of those agencies that we have to work with, and ICE is one of those.

This training program creates an understanding. It helps police officers understand and respect civil liberties. It helps police officers understand and respect civil rights. It helps police officers at the local level in training with the Federal Government understand and respect the diverse communities that we serve. Why would we not want to have our local police officers participate in training that helps give us a broader understanding of the diverse community we serve?

It makes no sense to me to be against increasing this budget to what ICE has asked for. It makes no sense at all. If we are truly interested in civil liberty, civil rights and respecting each other's diversity, we would want this training.

Let's make a point clear: This is voluntary. This isn't mandated by the government. Every police department and Sheriff's office across the country can volunteer for this program.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a great program. I commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing this forward. I fully support this amendment, and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of it.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Chair: Has the gentleman from Texas spoken on this amendment yet?

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: No, I haven't.

Chair: The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.

Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that I follow my colleagues that have worked in law enforcement, for I, too, have worked in the court systems of criminal justice.

This 287(g) program to me is an exciting idea that has great potential, and I would love to see it expanded to where we have trained every law enforcement officer in America in just the style that my colleague from Washington just described, so that they can not only honor the diversity as he described, but also can participate in enforcing the laws of the United States, where the resources required for interior enforcement of the immigration laws, the number is overwhelming. To me, it is a good use of resources to use good, honest law enforcement wherever it exists to enforce the laws of this land.

I thought about this the other night, because it's an experience that most everyone here probably, if they will confess, has had. If you live in Houston, Texas, where my colleague, Ms. Jackson-Lee, lives, or pick a town, it doesn't really matter, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, and you get a parking ticket, if you fail to pay that parking ticket, you're probably going to get a notice from the department that takes care of parking tickets, and they're going to send you that notice and tell you that you have failed to appear to answer to this parking ticket.

They're going to stick a fine on there to go with the parking ticket fine. It could be $100, it could be $50, whatever the jurisdiction chooses, and then that letter is going to say, if you don't pay these two offenses, then we're going to issue a warrant for your arrest on a parking ticket.

Believe me, it happens every day. Ask my daughter, okay? Now, they probably aren't going to get out and serve that warrant unless they do some mass roundup, but generally they don't do that. But you're driving down the street, if you get that ticket in Houston, Texas, and you happen to be in Dallas with a broken taillight, and a police officer stops you to tell you he wants to give you a warning about your broken taillight and he runs the national system of warrants that's available across this Nation. Guess what he finds? They have a warrant for your arrest for a parking ticket in Houston, Texas, and he will arrest you; and he will put you in jail or hold you until you deal with that ticket.

Now, that's what happens to every American citizen that follows the scenario that I just gave you, or could happen to them.

Now, 18 months ago, when I was meeting with ICE people, I asked them how many absconders we had from these folks that were catch-and-release that had been ordered to court and had failed to appear on the ICE warrants. I found the number was approximately 700,000 people. It's probably more now, because I'm talking about 18 months ago; that's the number they gave to me.

And I asked the ICE agents, are there warrants issued for their arrests? Are they in the system? And will local law enforcement respect those warrants? And I couldn't get an answer. I was privately told, "No."

Now, this program, with trained officers out on the street, at least we could pick up violators of the Federal law who had disrespected the court system created by this Federal law and had failed to appear in that court. At least we could pick them up in the manner we pick up people who get a parking ticket.

We have to be inventive in this problem that we are facing with massive violation of the law in the immigration system. And I think the 287(g) is the core, so that we train to find these people in prison. There were times when we were at the jail commission trying to close our county jail for overcrowdedness that the district judges would review it every Friday evening, and we would find that 30 percent of the inmates in our jail would be illegal aliens. Thirty percent. And sometimes higher.

Let's have trained people. Let's support this amendment. Let's have trained people and let the departments that want to participate put trained people on the street to deal with ICE issues.

Rep. John Campbell [R-CA48]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I've been listening to the debate on this particular amendment, and I've heard a number of people who are opposed to it speak, I suppose, about their theories, about how this won't work or why it may not be effective or what it may do or affect people in a community or whatever.

I am here, Mr. Chairman, not to talk about theories or not to talk about speculation, but to talk about what this particular program has done, in fact, in Orange County, California. My congressional district is entirely encompassed within the County of Orange in California. There are five other Members of this body whose congressional districts are either entirely within Orange County, California, or partially within Orange County, California, and two jurisdictions within that county, both the Orange County sheriff's department and the police at the city of Costa Mesa, California, have been engaged in this program.

I would like to read from a press release that was issued from the Office of Sheriff-Coroner Mike Carona. This press release was issued just last month relative to the effectiveness of the program that is the subject of the lady from Virginia's amendment.

It says, "Since the inception of Orange County Sheriff Michael Carona's cross-designation program in January 2007, deputies have increased the number of immigration holds by more than 400 percent, from approximately 350 to over 1,600. Of this amount, more than 1,000 of the undocumented individuals who were booked into Orange County jail were charged with felony law violations, and over 100 were known gang members."

Now, Mr. Chairman, this is fact, that since the Orange County sheriff's department participated in this program and had its deputies trained on how to enforce our illegal immigration laws, they have taken off the street 1,600 illegal aliens, 1,000 of whom were felons. So because of this program, there are 1,000 fewer illegal immigrant felons walking the streets in Orange County, California.

That is not theory. That is not conjecture. That is actually fact.

Also, in the city of Costa Mesa, which I do not represent, but is represented by Congressman Rohrabacher, but it's adjacent to my district, they've recently trained their officers in enforcing immigration laws, and between March and May of 2007, they identified and placed containers on 146 illegal immigrants in the city jail, and of this amount, 53 had committed felonies.

Now, this is in addition to the 1,000 felons that I talked about before, because it's a separate jurisdiction, a separate city police force dealing with their jurisdiction within the County of Orange.

So, Mr. Chairman, this program is effective, and I know some people who are opposed to this amendment have said that somehow it's going to disrupt community relations or something like that. I can tell you that the Orange County sheriff's office has been very, very involved in the community generally, broadly in Orange County, both in ethnic communities and in regular communities, and very involved in stopping drugs.

Because what a lot of people are interested in, particularly in some lower-income communities, is getting the drug dealers and getting the problems that drugs create out of their community. That's what they're interested in. They're not necessarily interested in protecting felons or in making sure that somehow when we have illegal alien felons that we handicap or restrict the ability of local law enforcement to find those people, identify them and bring them to justice and eventually out of this country.

So, Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment from the lady from Virginia, and I support it on the basis of actual, real experience that has happened in my county; and, that we know of, well over 1,000 felons who are no longer on the street.

Rep. José Serrano [D-NY16]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before in this discussion, and it's easily something that the other party wants to do in spite of the fact that their local governments tell them they don't want this done. I think the public and all Members really need to understand what this is about. This is about the fact that there are people in this country who are undocumented. That's a fact. How do you remove them out of the country is another issue.

What happens while they're living in this country is the issue at hand. Now, throughout the discussion on immigration, we've had questions like, if a person is here, undocumented, and they have a child, do you say to that child, you can't go to a public school because your parents are here undocumented?

Well, if you think they're leaving tomorrow or next year, that might work. But if you think that eventually whatever plan we come up with allows X number of children to stay in the country, then you can't deny them education because you're just creating a generation of Americans who won't get education.

Then you move on to step two. At times, we have said that if a person is here undocumented, they should not get any kind of emergency medical care. Well, besides the humaneness of that, that we should never deny medical care to anyone, there is the issue of, so do you want the person working at a local hamburger place serving you food while they are ill and not able to treat their disease and the germs they may spread around. That is an issue.

This one is really a classic one. This is where you say to your local police department, we want you to enforce immigration law. And just about a unanimous cry throughout the Nation has been from police departments saying, Don't give us that responsibility. We don't want it. We don't need it.

The reason they don't want it and they don't need it is for a very proper crime-fighting purpose. A local police department, a local law enforcement department, makes contacts in the community, finds out who's committing crime in the community by talking to folks. Traditionally, undocumented folks have known and have felt secure in that they can tell a police officer that a crime has been committed and point a finger at the person who's committed the crime, knowing very well that their conversation is about crime and not about documentation or about their status as a citizen or a noncitizen, an illegal or undocumented person within the country.

That is the reason why just about every police department in the Nation, sheriff's, whatever they are called in different communities, have said, don't give us that responsibility; we don't want it because we want to keep this relationship going with this community, knowing well that we can get information out of them.

And they are not dealing with us on an immigration law issue. That's why we have ICE. That's why we have all other people in the country that enforce immigration law.

But now we bring it, since September 11, to a new point, and that is, what if in the gathering of information that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack, you can't get information from some folks because they're afraid that while speaking to you, their immigration issue comes to light rather than their information on the fact that there could be a terrorist plot being planned somewhere.

This is a classic case of the old line throwing the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there is an immigration issue, and we are trying to deal with it, all of us. And, yes, I know that there are some people that are very upset about the fact that there are people here who are not legally in the country.

But now to go and say that you're the party for law and order, Mr. Chairman, and at the same time say, but we want to tie the hands of our local law enforcement in gathering information, is a terrible mistake.

You will continue to do what you want. Eventually more and more police departments will tell you that they don't want this job; they don't want this responsibility. And somehow we will continue to get it wrong. Don't tie the hands of our law enforcement folks. Let them continue to gather the information they need.

Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York, but we solved that problem in my community of Charlotte, North Carolina. We have a police department that has relationships with the people in their community, and they go out and deal with them; and the sheriff is handling our 287(g) program. We have one of the most successful ones in the country, and it is very simple. The misconception is out there of what the 287(g) program is really about. It is about people who have committed some kind of a crime, just like you and me, who are booked into the jail, and that is why it is perfect for the sheriff to handle it, because then they are booked into the jail, then the sheriff has the ability to check the national database and see if that person has any violations anyplace, anywhere else in the country. That is the beauty of the program.

We started it in our city. Our sheriff, Jim Pendergraff, has very successfully found ways to grow this program. And in the first few months, actually, we had over a thousand people who were removed and deported that were criminals on the street. It is working very well.

Again, I go back to the fact, and I thank the gentlelady from Virginia for this amendment because it is crucial we have these all over the country.

The Senate bill said there were only 50 programs going to be authorized. We have 3,200 jails in the country. That doesn't cut it. ICE can't do it all. They literally can't, and local law enforcement is in a perfect position to be able to help.

Since we started it in Mecklenburg County, all of the counties around us are also doing the same program because they have found that people are moving into their county to avoid being caught in Mecklenburg. So we have our surrounding districts who are applying, have applied or are now doing the 287(g) program in addition to Mecklenburg. It really works. It is a good program, and I totally support the efforts to see this come to fruition as an amendment.

Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO2]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Rep. Thelma Drake [R-VA2]: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that the reason I chose this funding, the Office of the Secretary of Management, is because in researching this, I realized there was an $89 million increase between 2007 and 2008 funding. That is a 60 percent increase. I think it is important that money be spent in our communities.

I would also like to point out that I did research the $50 million that was referenced in the report, and that report isn't very accurate because by the end of this month, there will be roughly $1 million left in that account, not $50 million. In 2006, $5 million was appropriated for operating expenses. In 2007, it was $5.4 million; and then there was the $50 million appropriated for start-up costs. But by the end of this month, those will have been almost spent.

With the hard work of people like Sheriff Pendergraff in North Carolina and our other sheriffs across the Nation, the public is aware of the services, the resources, the technology and the training, that can be provided through this program.

Unfortunately for us in Virginia Beach, all of America heard of the very, very tragic accident that took the lives of two beautiful young women at the hands of an illegal alien DUI driver who had been apprehended in our community at least three times and was still back out on the street.

This is a voluntary program, but citizens in our State are asking: How can you break our law, be in our justice system and be right back out on the streets again? This is a program that deals with people who have been apprehended and not victims or witnesses.

There are also State-level programs. With our DMV, I think every one of us would want to know that our DMVs can find fraudulent documents because of these resources that are available.

And in regards to our correctional systems, for local governments to be telling ICE right in the very beginning, ICE can have all of the paperwork done and be ready when that person is released for that person to be deported, just like that, no additional cost of detainment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friends today who have spoken on behalf of this amendment, and I certainly appreciate the chairman of the subcommittee saying he is willing to accept this amendment. I think all of America thanks you.

Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO2]: Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Rep. Harold Rogers [R-KY5]: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman for being an aggressive leader on this subject. She is very knowledgeable on the subject and has done a great deal of work in backgrounding on the amendment she has brought forward. She is doing a great service to the country in this effort. I want to compliment and thank the gentlelady for a great job.

Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I come to the floor today having responded to the gentlelady from Florida, a distinguished colleague in the Democrat majority, who asked I think a very poignant question on the floor within the last hour, and that was: Where are the reformers?

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get the whole gist and the whole context of her question, but it seemed to me that could be a headline. That could be the lead of an editorial. It really represents the question in which much of the exercise in which we are now involved could be summarized.

The chairman of this committee I think has earned throughout his career the label of reformer. I give Chairman Obey that with great respect, not just as a colleague but as a man who has earned that reputation.

But today, as someone who over the last 6 years in this Congress has engaged in fights almost exclusively with my own colleagues on the Republican side, to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, I ask: Where are the reformers?

And let me specifically say to my Democrat colleagues who share my passion for transparency and accountability, I ask the question: Where are the reformers?

In the last 3 years, and there are colleagues in this room whom I consider not just friends but good friends with whom I have clashed. The ranking member of this subcommittee, we have been on this floor together, Republican on Republican, using, in some cases, the same tactics that we are using today, but we were not training them on the majority. We were training them on our own. We were training these tactics on our own Republican colleagues. That is how passionately we felt for the need for point of order protection in conference reports and for fundamental earmark reform. It would be Members of the Republican Study Committee that virtually singularly took on, not Democrats in the minority, we took on Republicans in the majority. And it was painful among our friends to do it, but we withheld our support for the majority budget. We negotiated fairly but firmly with our own colleagues and friends to

But we were fighting on this side amongst ourselves and making halting progress toward earmark reform. That is why, as I watched this debate and as I participate in it, I will be here, as we say in Indiana, until the cows come home. I ask with a sincere heart: Where are the reformers in the majority? Where are the reformers who will come down into this well, and I see some up there that wear that label and deserve it, but on this issue, where are the reformers who are willing to come into this well and say, how about "no"? How about we don't bring appropriation bills to the floor without all of the spending items in the bill, including Member projects and earmarks, so they can be subject to the accountability and the scrubbing of the legislative process?

I know it is inconvenient. I do not question for one second the sincerity of the chairman of this committee, that he is trying and laboring to find a way forward to achieve his goals. But at the end of the day, we cannot set aside the accountability of the legislative process. I ask again: Where are the reformers?

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]: I yield to the gentleman from California.

Rep. Sam Farr [D-CA17]: I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been in elected office, local, State and Federal, for 34 years, and I cannot imagine how any of your community got built without earmarks at the local level, the State level and the Federal level.

There are also earmarks in the bill the President sends down. I think you have misstated the whole symbol of earmarks. The reform in here is more severe than any local, State or Federal office has ever had in the history of the United States.

Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]: Reclaiming my time, the distinguished gentleman should know that I have supported earmark reform, not banning earmarks, but we can't have earmarks that deny the legislative process here on the floor. Where are the reformers?

Rep. David Obey [D-WI7]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, and I certainly am not directing my comments to the gentleman who just spoke, but I do want to make a few comments about the issue of so-called earmarks.

For the last 2 days, Member after Member in this institution have traipsed to the well or stood at the committee table and misdescribed and mischaracterized my proposals and the proposals that several other Democrats have made to reform the earmarking process.

I would simply say, I would have been greatly, if I had had any regard at all for those who were making those statements, I would have been upset. Let me simply say there are many Members--well, that is not true. There are some Members who have embarrassed this institution by the carelessness of their earmarks who came to the well and sounded off as so-called champions of reform.

There are Members who have come up to me and chastised me because I was insisting on a 50 percent reduction on earmarks; who have sent me letters asking for earmark after earmark after earmark. And there are a great many Members of this body who are not members of the Appropriations Committee who seem to have a memory lapse and forget that the bridge to nowhere, and most of the actions by Mr. Cunningham had nothing to do with the appropriations process; they occurred on legislation out of other committees.

I want to make clear, I hate the earmarking process. I absolutely detest it, not because earmarks are wrong, I think 90 percent of the earmarks attached by Members of both parties are perfectly legitimate, and they are a whole lot more on target than the misdirected spending of some of our bureaucrats and the misdirected analysis of OMB, and I know that from personal experience.

The reason I hate earmarks is because they suck everybody in. They suck them into the idea that we have to be ATM machines for our districts, and so they focus on the tiny portion of most bills that are earmarks instead of focusing on the policy that is represented by the legislation that we produce.

It's a whole lot more important to know whether we have adequately funded education or whether we have funded the right programs in education and refused to add funding to some of the worst programs in education than it is to know whether a Member got a $200,000 earmark for an after-school center.

I want the public to know all of that. Every earmark I've ever gotten I believe I've put out a press release and talked as loud as I could and tried to get as much attention to it as I could, because I believed in it.

But what I don't believe in is people who walk both sides of the street. I could tell you what they call them in my hometown. The letter begins with W, and I just want to say that I'm going to be very interested in seeing which Members ask for earmarks and which don't, and I'm going to be very interested in seeing which Members vote for the amendment that I intend to attach to every appropriation bill, which would call for a total elimination on earmarks. I want to see how many of you actually vote for it. I want to see how many of you do not give hypocrisy a bad name.

I thank the House for its attention.

Rep. Steve King [R-IA5]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the timing of this discussion, I really asked to be recognized to address the Drake amendment, but as I listened to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, I think there are some things that we need to take up and add to this particular discussion that he's opened up.

And that is, what do we do about this conundrum of earmarks? First of all, we do have too many earmarks, and I've not been one that's said that that solves our spending problem here, but I think it puts bait out there for people to do things that, first of all, if the bloggers could see the things that are going on, they would weigh in on us, and perhaps that would be some of the regulatory function that the bloggers could perform.

But a couple of nights ago, I sat down and went through two appropriations bills. One of them was the omnibus spending bill for 2005, 1,600 pages; another appropriation bill, 400 pages; all together, 2,000 pages. And I didn't read it all, wouldn't have been possible, but I leafed through that appropriations bill, and I find in there earmarks that wouldn't be identified as earmarks. I find in there language that says this funding shall go to this company as funded in previous years.

And my recommendation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who hopefully would hear what I would have to say, that being a bill I introduced last year called the CUT Act, "cut unnecessary tab," as in a bar tab, unnecessary spending. But what it does is it solves the problem that's been identified here and, to some degree, described by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and articulately addressed by Mr. Pence and others here on this floor.

It puts us all up to public scrutiny. Sunlight is the antidote, and we ought to have enough pride in every earmark that we ask for that we would allow the public to see what we're doing with our spending.

And when I look through an appropriations bill, 2,000 pages of them, and I see that even if you knew what you were looking for, you couldn't identify that earmark, you couldn't identify the amount. You might identify the company that it goes to, but unless you had an in with the committee staff and you could trace back through that paperwork, and no one outside this Chamber that I know of can do that without favors by a Member, and a lot of Members couldn't walk in there and get that information, including myself. We need to set this all up for the public scrutiny.

So I spent a couple of years working through my proposal, and I'll hopefully be able to introduce the language again so it's here and goes into this discussion. But the CUT Act makes in order a bill to come to the floor once a quarter that is a rescissions bill and a rescissions bill only. It might just be a blank title offered by the majority leader or the minority leader on the other side, but every Member could bring an amendment down to that.

And it takes this idea that once you go to the conference report and you offer it to the House and the Senate, up-or-down vote, no amendments, no one can know what's in there and no one can read it all, no one can analyze it if they can read it all, but if we put that all up and post it up on the Internet and let the world look at what we're doing and then bring a bill to the floor that's a rescissions bill and let any Member bring an amendment to strike something like the reference was to the

The rest is rhetoric. The rest is hiding behind one side of political argument or the other, but if we're willing to put our earmarks up for an up-or-down vote and let this Congress go on record for any line item, then we truly have the sunlight on this that we've asked for; and I'd ask that consideration from the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

The people that want to stand up for reform, here it is, the CUT Act.

And then in the moments I have left, I would add that I stand in support of the Drake amendment. And I grew up in a law enforcement family. You cannot enforce laws effectively if you're going to have local government or State law enforcement that decides that they can't engage in enforcing Federal law or vice versa. This has got to be a kind of working, compatible relationship so that the city police, county sheriffs, highway patrolmen and Federal officers all work in a collaborative arrangement. And we need to have the resources to train those local officers.

When we have people on the streets that are picked up two, three, four, five or six times for a traffic violation or an insurance violation, or in an accident or a minor misdemeanor, and they're released back into society and then someone is killed or someone is raped or someone is robbed from, the price to this economy and this society is horrible and horrendous.

And we can't get government to tell us what those numbers are, but I commissioned a GAO study here that was released in April of 2005 that produced those numbers, and I'll bring those numbers back to this floor.

Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL17]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I'm a new Member of this institution. I sat here last night, along with a lot of Members of this body; and on my way, walking to my apartment, I was walking with another freshman Member, and we were talking about what did we just do.

It was what we didn't do. We listened to procedure after procedure, stall after stall, finger-pointing after finger-pointing; and here we were talking about, I thought, an appropriation for something that is incredibly important to this entire Nation. Our national security is at stake.

I'm going to say something also as a new Member. I will comment on the bill in a moment.

I want to commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Quite frankly, he has a much longer fuse than I have. So much finger-pointing going on. I know how much work that he and Representative Price and other people have put into these bills.

I'm not an appropriator. I'm a clothing worker, but I'm a freshman Member of this body, and I know finger-pointing when I see it. I know coming to the floor and getting your picture on TV and making sure the cameras hear every word that you say, but I also know the difference between right and wrong. And I will tell you this, Mr. Chairman, last night this was absolutely one of the worst dog-and-pony shows I've seen, and hopefully we will never have to revisit this again.

To the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, let me say, I understand how much work went into this, and to the appropriators, how many hearings went on. I heard about the 3 1/2 -month delay that we were blamed about, but the very same chairman of the Appropriations Committee was verbally blasted in this Chamber because he had the unmitigated gall to try to put things in that would give hurricane relief to people affected on the gulf coast, give an opportunity for people to be able to have better lives, a farm disaster, wildfires that we don't have any money for to put out.

How quick we can be to criticize. It's easy, very easy to do.

I'm here tonight to say to this chairman of the committee and to the appropriators, I thank you for the hard work that you have done. We'll get these passed. We have agreed to a rule that opened this Chamber up to allow people to be able to do it, to be able to offer amendments and to come to the floor. I didn't think we offered it so that we could just have a 2 o'clock in the morning marathon, but I was elected to do the work of the people of the 17th Congressional District.

This bill fulfills the commitment to the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. How many years have we been waiting for that, Mr. Chairman?

It provides significant increased support to our first responders, to Customs and border agents and the Transportation and Security Administration. It appropriates $44 million above 2007 to infrastructure protection so communities can identify and assess critical security vulnerabilities. It funds disaster relief to the tune of $1.7 billion so our State and local governments can respond to declared disasters or emergencies.

My congressional district runs almost from the Wisconsin border to St. Louis. I've seen what floods can do to my district. I see what it could do to our farmers and how it can displace people. This bill provides $230 million to modernize and digitize over 100,000 flood maps used to determine rates for the National Flood Insurance program.

And the bill assures the consistent application of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards to construction projects funded with Federal grants. By guaranteeing payments of the prevailing local wage rate, this legislation facilitates a better standard of living and economic security for workers, particularly in rural communities and small towns in my district.

I want to close, Mr. Chairman, by again thanking the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I thank my friend Congressman Price for the hard work that he's put in. As I said, these bills will pass, and we will let the people of our district and the people of this Nation be the ones to decide which one of us, which Member of this body, really came here to do the work of the people. I did and so did many, many of my colleagues in this Chamber. But I will tell you what I won't do: I will not go back to my congressional district and apologize for putting in for projects.

Chair: The time of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hare was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Rep. Phil Hare [D-IL17]: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to apologize for trying to keep my arsenal, the 7,500 jobs there that produce armor to keep our troops safe in Iraq. I'm not apologizing for trying to save the community of Galesburg that lost a plant because of unfair trade policies to Sonora, Mexico. I don't apologize for writing things and asking for money. It's the taxpayers' money.

I don't apologize for anything I came here to work on. I will continue to work. But let me tell you, I'm not going to go through another night like I had last night. I'm going to be very vocal, and I'm going to stand up and I'm going to defend the people of this district.

I'm going to defend our leadership because I don't think they need defense, but I think they need to know there are a lot of us that really believe in what they have been doing.

Rep. Jeff Flake [R-AZ6]: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I have great respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and I heard what he said about the position he's in. I don't envy being in that position, to try to wade through 30,000-some earmark requests. As he mentioned, there are some within that number that will embarrass this institution and embarrass the Members, I have no doubt of that; and I think that's part of the reason that those have not been made public. I think that is the reason that they are kept with the committee.

But we are in a situation now where this well has been poisoned. If we go ahead and go through with the proposal that we simply in August list the earmarks that are being put into the bill, that are going to be airdropped into the bill later, without the ability to challenge them individually, there will surely be accusations, founded or unfounded, that people are being targeted for their opposition to earmarks, to speaking out on the floor, for speaking about them, against them or for them, or people will be favored or not. That's the nature of the game. That's the nature of the political process.

So I think it will be virtually impossible to go through that kind of atmosphere without the process being tainted even further.

I believe the chairman when he says that he hates earmarks. I think if it were up to him, he would get rid of them, and I would certainly support him. I don't think that the Democratic Caucus would allow that to happen because I fear that they believe, as we did as Republicans, that that's the surest path to reelection, that you protect vulnerable Members by giving them earmarks, that you spread it around in ways that you can curry favor with your constituents and your voters.

I think that is a road that leads directly back to the minority, but I wouldn't propose to give advice in that regard. I think that's part of the reason we are where we are today.

But all I know is that, when we have a situation, there is no perfect solution, certainly. We are in a fix now. But a situation where you have a choice of actually putting earmarks in bills with information about who has requested that earmark, what entity that earmark goes to, or balance that against a process where you simply can write a letter to the committee and ask about specific earmarks, I think that we as Members should demand the latter.

I, for one, am not willing to trade in this voting card. This is a card that we all get when we are elected that we use multiple times a day on this House floor. It allows us to register our support or opposition for specific legislation.

I am not willing to give this up for the ability to write a letter to the chairman of the committee or anyone else in Congress. That's a bad trade. I don't think that's a trade that anybody should be happy with.

I am intrigued by the chairman's proposal to offer an amendment on each appropriation bill to strike earmarks.

I would be most pleased if the gentleman would be glad to yield time if he would explain that amendment there is to offer. I will support it. I will gladly support it. So I would love to learn more about it. Perhaps we can jointly sponsor it.

But until then, until then, I think the country deserves to know what's in the bills when we vote on them. We aren't well served with the process, however intended, a process that keeps earmarks secret until a time that it is too late to actually challenge that earmark on the House floor.

So I think that this is a fight that is worth fighting, and I am glad that my colleagues have taken it up.

I support the amendment.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee [D-TX18]: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chair for this opportunity to explain my amendment to H.R. 2638, the "Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year of 2008." My amendment would provide an additional $5 million to FEMA, to support emergency preparedness efforts for vulnerable communities, including racial and ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged.

My amendment is very simple, but it is extremely necessary. In my own district in Houston, and in communities throughout America, minority, elderly, disabled, and improverished populations have not been adequately prepared for the upcoming hurricane season. Special efforts must be made to engage these most vulnerable members of our communities in vitally necessary emergency preparedness education, training, and awareness.

I am particularly dismayed that these vulnerable populations have not been targeted by outreach efforts communicating the need to prepare for a major hurricane. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck some of America's most vulnerable and disadvantaged communities, communities which are just now beginning to find their feet again after these devastating storms. National, state, and local governments have not fulfilled their responsibility to ensure that they are not, once again, left to face nature's wrath alone.

We saw the utter failure of government response 2 years ago, when Hurricane Katrina struck our shores. One Katrina survivor, a resident of New Orleans named Charmaine Neville, told her story in an interview following Hurricane Katrina. Ms. Neville described having no way to evacuate the city before the storm hit, and her feelings of abandonment by the authorities. She discussed her personal efforts, and those of other volunteers, to rescue stranded and vulnerable individuals "from the hospices, from the hospitals and from the old-folks homes."

Ms. Neville's testimony is shocking, even 2 years later. She states, "I tried to get the police to help us, but I realized they were in the same straits we were," and tells the story of her personal rescue of 2 elderly women in wheelchairs. Ms. Neville recalls, "When we finally did get into the 9th ward, and not just in my neighborhood, but in other neighborhoods in the 9th ward, there were a lot of people still trapped down there ..... old people, young people, babies, pregnant women." She told the interviewer, "What I want people to understand is that, if we hadn't been left down there like the animals that they were treating us like, all of those things wouldn't have happened. When they gave the evacuation order, if we could've left, we would have left."

Another Hurricane Katrina survivor described the situation at a local hospital, where his wife was employed as a nurse, in the days following the storm. "You can imagine a hospital with 2,000 people and no electricity, water, food, or flushing toilets. Breathing machines did not work. Cell phones did not work. Because the computers stopped working, medicines were unavailable. Elevators in the 8 floor building did not work. We quickly ran out of food because the cafeteria and food were also in the flooded basement. The gains of 21st century medicine disappeared. Over 40 people died in the hospital over the next few days as we waited for help."

He went on to talk about the evacuation, stating, "The Katrina evacuation was totally self-help. If you had the resources, a car, money and a place to go, you left. The poor, especially those without cars, were left behind. The sick were left behind. The elderly were left behind. Untold numbers of other disabled people and their caretakers were also left behind. Children were left behind. Prisoners were left behind."

I believe in an America in which no one is left behind. I believe in an America where these vulnerable sectors of the population are targeted by education, training, and awareness programs; an America in which they receive the tools and resources that they need to survive the next disaster. And I believe that, thus far, federal, state, and local governments have failed to provide this.

In light of this lack of adequate response, dedicated community activists, like Mr. Charles X. White of Houston, have stepped forward to fill this void. Mr. White and his organization, Charity Productions, are working tirelessly to provide much-needed resources for the elderly, disabled, impoverished, and minority communities of Houston. Community projects, like Mr. White's, that reach vulnerable members of our population are particularly crucial in light of predictions of a devastating hurricane season this year.

I saw firsthand the plight of vulnerable populations after Hurricane Rita. During the hurricane, I fielded calls at Houston's Emergency Operations Center in order to facilitate obtaining assistance for elderly and disabled residents. I believe it is unconscionable to, despite the knowledge and experience we have gained in the past 2 years, allow this to happen again.

A major component of hurricane preparedness must be an evacuation plan. In New Orleans, residents were divided between those who had cars and could easily escape, and those who did not. Nationally, African Americans and Latinos comprise about 54 percent of those reliant of public transportation. Blacks are 6 times more likely than whites to travel via public transit.

Since Katrina, cities like New Orleans have made some attempt to address evacuation deficiencies. According to reports, New Orleans has developed a system of bus evacuation; however, managers of the program have released few details about accommodations for those individuals with limited mobility. Matthew Kallmyer, New Orleans' deputy emergency preparedness director, has been quoted as saying, "Those people need to go ahead and try to make their own plan, of course. At the end of the day, you know you are someone who has a disability. Try to go ahead and find the means to get yourself out or get yourself to one of the evacuation points."

We have an obligation to provide the American people with a disaster response system that works. We must not allow the lessons of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to fall on deaf ears. My amendment seeks to fund the groups and programs that target vulnerable communities, to ensure that, when the next hurricane hits, these groups may be adequately prepared.

I look forward to working with the Appropriations Committee, and Chairman Obey and Chairman Price, to ensure language in the Conference Report for H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2008, which provides funds to FEMA for hurricane preparedness outreach to vulnerable communities.

Rep. David Obey [D-WI7]: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

The motion was agreed to.

Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher) having assumed the chair, Mr. Weiner, Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.