Canine Detection Team Improvement Act of 2007

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by saying how proud I am of the work of our subcommittee and its fine staff that has been done over the last number of months.

Through the 20 hearings we have held so far this year, featuring testimony from Department officials, watch dog agencies and outside experts, numerous security vulnerabilities and management problems have been identified and solutions offered. I believe that the bill reported by the committee is well informed by what we learned in these hearings.

I want to express my gratitude to the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), both for his leadership as the inaugural chairman of this subcommittee and more recently for his significant contributions as ranking member. Mr. Rogers established a strong, bipartisan approach to providing vigilant oversight of the Department, and I have endeavored to continue on that path.

I also want to pay tribute to Martin Sabo, the former ranking member of this subcommittee, who is an example to all of us not only for his expertise and leadership on homeland security issues, but also his commitment to public service and to this institution.

And I don't want to go any further without expressing my respect for and gratitude to the professional staff of the subcommittee, both majority and minority. Beverly Pheto has been an exemplary clerk. Her mastery of the issues facing the Department and each of its components has been invaluable. And I cannot underestimate the contributions of Stephanie Gupta, Jeff Ashford, Jim Holm, and Shalanda Young on the majority side; and Tom McLemore, Ben Nicholson, and Christine Kojac on the minority side, as well as Darek Newby of my personal staff. Our subcommittee relies on the professionalism and expertise of these individuals. They are performing an invaluable service to the country.

Mr. Chairman, in total, the bill before us contains $36.3 billion in discretionary funding, which is $2.5 billion, or more than 7 percent, above the funding appropriated in 2007, including funding given an emergency designation in the 2007 bill. That so-called ``emergency'' funding was primarily for border security needs that have necessarily been absorbed into the baseline for fiscal year 2008. The bill contains $2 billion, or 5 percent, more than the amounts requested by President Bush. I hope my colleagues will agree that the country's outstanding homeland security vulnerabilities, including border security, more than justify this level of funding.

This bill does four important things: First, it provides funding to address our country's most pressing security vulnerabilities with a new emphasis on our ports and on rail and transit systems.

Secondly, the bill provides critically needed funding to our States and communities to confront not only the threat of terrorist activity but also natural disasters and the emergency situations that must be dealt with in our community every day. Homeland security requires a faithful partnership among the Federal Government, States, and local communities. And this bill honors that partnership.

Thirdly, the bill helps to ensure that taxpayer dollars are well spent by requiring specific management reforms related to contracting, procurement, and competition. It cuts $1.2 billion below the fiscal 2007 levels and $244 million below the requested amounts for programs and activities that are not performing well or for which increased or level funding has not been adequately justified; and it withholds a total of $1.9 billion for various programs until the Department submits detailed expenditure plans.

And, fourth, the bill takes a long-term approach by requiring outside reviews of several major programs and activities to ensure that long- term investments of taxpayer money are made wisely and productively. For example, we are commissioning studies by the National Academies of Science on the current direction of the BioWatch program and on the Department's risk analysis capabilities and the improvements needed to ensure that investments are well targeted.

The funding increases provided in this bill address the security vulnerabilities identified by numerous expert groups, including the 9/ 11 Commission and the Hart-Rudman Commission. They also fund security actions mandated in the SAFE Ports Act and the Katrina Reform Act.

Aviation explosive detection systems are funded in total at $849 million, $324 million more than the regular 2007 bill. Air cargo security is funded at $73 million, $18 million more than the 2007 bill. And the bill directs TSA to double the amount of cargo it screens prior to loading onto passenger aircraft.

Transit security grants are funded at $400 million, $225 million more than the 2007 bill. Port security grants are funded at $400 million, $190 million more than the 2007 bill. An additional $40 million is provided for the Coast Guard to implement the requirements of the SAFE Ports Act.

Emergency Management Performance Grants are funded at $300 million, $100 million more than the 2007 bill. Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants are funded at $50 million, $17 million more than 2007. State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention grants are funded at $950 million; that is $50 million more than 2007. Urban area security grants are funded at $800 million, $30 million more than the 2007 bill. REAL ID and interoperable communication grants are funded in total at $100 million, in contrast to no funding provided in 2007. Fire grants are funded at $800 million, $138 million more than 2007. And FEMA management and administration is funded at $685 million, $150 million more than 2007.

Mr. Chairman, I want to highlight a number of other provisions in the bill that are particularly important. We have all heard about contracts and awards from the Department that were not competed. FEMA recently submitted a list of nearly 4,000 contracts that were never competitively bid. This bill mandates that all grant and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes except

when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in this bill.

In addition, the bill addresses a major immigration vulnerability that exists today. It requires that ICE contact correctional facilities throughout the U.S. on a monthly basis to identify incarcerated immigrants who are subject to deportation. Although ICE deports some number of these individuals now, it is not systematically identifying and deporting them. There is simply no excuse for failing to identify every deportable alien and deporting them immediately upon their release from prison.

These are undocumented individuals who have served time in jail for committing crimes, and we are now, unfortunately, releasing them all too often back into the population. So asking prisons for information about these individuals so they can be deported should be among the first priorities in our illegal immigration enforcement strategy. This bill provides the direction and the funding to ICE to make this happen.

The bill funds the Secure Border Initiative at the requested level of $1 billion, while requiring the Department to clearly justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders. For each border segment, the Department will have to produce an analysis comparing its selected approach to alternatives based on total cost, on level of control achieved, impact on affected communities, and other factors.

We are also requiring the Department to seek the advice and support of each local community affected by a border infrastructure project. I want to be clear that this does not give border communities a veto on border projects and it will not result in any project delays if the Department efficiently carries out its responsibilities. The provision simply requires the Department to actively and faithfully consult affected communities to ensure that our border security efforts minimize adverse community impacts. That is reasonable to ask of the Department, and the Department agrees that such consultation is appropriate.

We are also directing the Department to increase by over 40 percent the number of Border Patrol agents on the northern border to comply with the levels called for in the Intelligence Reform Act. In addition, the bill addresses a Customs and Border Protection staffing problem that we heard about on a February congressional delegation to the southwest border.

Because CBP officers are not considered law enforcement officers, despite the increasing role of law enforcement in their duties, they don't receive the same benefits as DHS personnel who are considered law enforcement officers. This has made it extremely difficult to hold on to CBP officers. In a nutshell, the bill would allow eligible CBP officers to transition to law enforcement status beginning in fiscal 2008.

The Transportation Security Administration's loss of the personal data of thousands of its employees is only the most recent example of the privacy problems plaguing the Department. The bill withholds funding for certain DHS programs until the proper privacy protections are in place because security and privacy can and should go hand in hand.

In conclusion, let me mention a few other provisions, Mr. Chairman. First, the bill includes language mandating that stricter State and local chemical security laws and regulations cannot be preempted by the Federal Government. Secondly, the bill mandates that all grant and contract funds comply with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. Thirdly, the $101 million in the bill for the new DHS campus facility at St. Elizabeth's will not be available until the Department submits an explosive detection equipment spending plan and promulgates long overdue regulations on U-Visas for victims of domestic violence, rape, and involuntary servitude.

This withholding of funds should not be interpreted as a signal of lukewarm support for the development of the St. Elizabeth's campus. On the contrary, the Department and the country would be better served by colocating most of its headquarters components onto this single campus. This is simply our way of signaling that any further delay on an explosive detection plan or on the overdue U-Visa rule is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

The gentleman is correct. Language in the report directs the science and technology directorate to fulfill the funding obligation to which it committed itself in the MOU signed last November.

I would be happy to work with you and Mr. Hastings to ensure that the Department adheres to the direction provided in the report.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to our colleague on the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), another member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his kind words on our bill, and I appreciate his interest in the Protective Security Analysis Center, or PSAC.

As the gentleman noted, the bill includes $78.9 million for the Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection to carry out identification and analysis programs. This funding supports the analytical work done by DHS to identify risks to infrastructure and to model the effects of terrorist attacks and natural disasters.

The PSAC is an important part of these activities. I look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that these important activities are adequately funded in our bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes to a very fine Member, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the chairman of our authorizing committee on homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island who's worked with us on this bill, Mr. Langevin.

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar).

Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

I do understand these large urban areas are at high risk from a terrorism event. We have addressed that conscientiously in this bill. This committee is providing $30 million over last year's level of $770 million for the urban area grants.

The gentleman's amendment would increase the Urban Area Security Initiative grants by $50 million. At the same time it would reduce the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management and the office of the Under Secretary for Management. The Office of the Secretary and Executive Management would be reduced by $15 million, or 14 percent.

Funding for a number of offices is included in this appropriation, including the Secure Border Initiative Office, the Policy Office, the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office and the Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement. The bill provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the Privacy and Civil Rights Offices, where staffing levels are increased slightly, and the Policy Office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID and the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which are carefully designed and will help ensure privacy and civil rights, could be compromised or largely defunded.

The gentleman's amendment also proposes to reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management by $35 million, or 14 percent. The total increase in this office is due to $101 million provided for DHS headquarters facilities at St. Elizabeth's. We have already substantially reduced the request coming from the administration. We need to get the Department consolidated in this new headquarters; and of course, this amendment would make even less funding available for this new facility.

So I reluctantly ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the amendment.

No, I did not.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, it's the easiest thing in the world to come to this floor and to rail against bureaucracy, this abstract notion of cutting bureaucracy; but I think it's prudent to ask what exactly do these officials do and what is actually in the bill and why is it there. So let me try to get beyond just the symbolism of cutting bureaucracy and try to answer those very basic questions.

First of all, let me say, I don't know where the figure 17 percent that the gentleman's using comes from. The increase in this bill over fiscal 2007 spending, counting the bill that we passed last year and the emergency spending incorporated in that bill, is 7\1/2\ percent. And if you include the emergency funding that we just added to the 2007 bill, then the increase is 4 percent without the Katrina funding, and it is actually a cut of 7\1/2\ percent with the Katrina funding. So if you're using the 2007 bill as the baseline, those are the accurate numbers.

Now, let's look at the front office of the Department of Homeland Security. The bill includes, sure enough, $923 million for Department operations, but that's less than the 2007 appropriation. It's less than the President requested by $73 million.

The gentleman has focused on one aspect of front office operations, which is the Office of Secretary and Executive Management, and he wants to cut that by almost $10 million. But there are good reasons for that being increased while the overall front office expenses are being decreased.

This appropriation, the one the gentleman has targeted, the one he has said is purely bureaucracy, included in that appropriation are the Secure Border Initiative office, which many Members on both sides of the aisle have a strong interest in; the policy office; the privacy office, which surely needs strengthening; the civil rights office, which surely needs strengthening; and the office of counter-narcotics enforcement, a critical function as well.

And the bill isn't lavish even in this respect. It provides only enough funding to support current on-board staff except for the privacy and civil rights offices, where staffing levels are increased, and the policy office, where additional funding is provided for REAL ID, a new program that requires some staffing up, and for the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States, which, as every Member knows, we are trying to also strengthen.

If funding is reduced, these program enhancements, which will help to better ensure privacy, to better ensure civil rights protections, would not be funded. So let's get past the rhetoric about bureaucracy. Let's look at what the appropriation actually does. I think if Members do, they will reject this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think it will be in the interest of the debate the rest of the day to have this straight, so I do appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

It's true, the bill is at $36.3 billion. Last year's appropriation was $34.2 billion. That is counting the emergency spending that was enacted at the same time as the regular bill. That means this year's increase is 7\1/2\ percent. And then if you add the 2007 supplemental appropriations, which were just voted by the House, depending on whether you count the Katrina money or not, you either get a 4.2 percent increase or a 7.5 percent decrease from the 2007 funding level.

I appreciate the chance to clarify those numbers.

I am happy to clarify the situation.

The 2007 appropriation, as enacted, was $34.2 billion. That includes the $31.9 billion that the gentleman cited, plus the emergency spending in that same bill, because as you well remember, we needed to address the border and immigration situation. So that was added to the bill.

The spending in the 2007 bill was $34.2 billion, and we are increasing that by 7.5 percent, and then we have recently supplemented the appropriation. The 2007 spending now stands at $39.2 billion, and the 2008 bill is 7.5 percent less than that in nominal terms.

If I may just say further, the gentleman referred to the way we do accounting around here. This is just straight nominal numbers. The departmental operations are cut--are cut--in our bill from 2007 levels by $1.2 million. They are cut from the President's request by $72 million. It's not a matter of adjustments one way or the other for inflation; those are straightforward cuts.

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for his eloquence, both about the potential threat of global warming and what that may mean for emergencies that we have to deal with in the future, and also for the need to repair and rebuild FEMA so that we have a nimble, responsive agency that can respond to all kinds of disasters all over this country.

I understand that the gentleman will perhaps be willing to withdraw this amendment. I hope that he will do that, but I want to assure him that we understand what he's focusing on, and that we will work with him as we go to conference to make sure that FEMA has the resources that it needs. We have beefed up FEMA's resources a good deal in this bill.

Now, on the question of who should be studying global warming and assessing its future impact, there are legitimate questions, I believe, as to whether FEMA is the agency that's best equipped to do this. Other agencies, such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, do have expertise in this area, but if that expertise is not being translated into practical preparation, and if there's not adequate coordination between NOAA and the research operations and the operational agencies, then that obviously is a concern that needs to be addressed. I appreciate the Member from Ohio's raising that concern, and promise that we will work with you.

I will.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington, although I want to heartily endorse the emphasis he's given to the importance of the intelligence and analytical functions.

Perhaps I can best begin by making an observation about this bill as a whole. We have closely examined the status of the programs that we're funding, their history of drawing down funds, their unspent balances, their ability to spend the money that has been requested. And so when the gentleman sees a reduction in funding of the sort that he sees in this account, it would be a big mistake to read that as a de-emphasis of this function or some kind of judgment that this function is not important. We think it's highly important. But we do have some observations that are included in the committee report.

I refer the gentleman to page 23 of the report about the rationale behind the, we hope, temporary reductions that we've written into this bill. It's a short section. Let me just read it. ``The Committee has reduced the funding level for intelligence and analysis below the amounts requested. The Committee notes that the Office of Intelligence and Analysis carried over

significant unobligated balances at the end of fiscal year 2006, and has shown no signs of an increased pace of obligations during the current fiscal year.''

That is not something we're pleased about, but the best way to create some pressure and some incentives to correct this situation, to get this function moving, is what the committee has done.

The gentleman's amendment would reduce by $10 million the amounts provided to the managerial function and the Border Patrol at DHS and reallocate those funds for the intelligence functions.

But as I said, at the end of 2006 the intelligence program had $50 million remaining unspent, largely because it was unable to hire the staff at the rate at which it was planned. There's been no indication from the intelligence managers of the Department that the pace of hiring has increased, so we fully expect the programs will end this year with significant balances unspent. It's simply imprudent to keep appropriating more money when those sizable balances remain unspent.

Now, as for the offset, briefly, the amendment proposes to reduce funding for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1 million, or 1 percent. That, as we've said earlier, would nip in the bud our efforts to better ensure privacy and to enforce civil rights. That's the reason there's a slight increase in that function. And the gentleman's amendment would remove that, as well as reduce funding for the office of the Under Secretary for Management, which is tied to the need to consolidate DHS operations in a new headquarters.

So, in the other aspect of the amendment, perhaps even more dangerously, the amendment proposes to reduce CBP salaries, Border Patrol salaries and expenses, by $6 million. That could generate significant vulnerabilities in the Border Patrol's ability to ensure the security of the northern and southern borders.

So the offsets are not good, and the overall increase would, in all likelihood, remain unspent.

So for those reasons, and certainly not for any lack of concern about intelligence and analytical operations, I do reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we will accept this amendment, but I want to explain my reasoning, if I might, and explain it very carefully.

For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the aisle has been raised in opposition, not one.

So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration's legitimate needs to administer its Department?

Now, I don't care how many times people get on this floor and claim that we have made lavish increases. The fact is, and I will say it one more time, this bill cuts departmental operations. It cuts them below the President's request, and it cuts them below 2007 levels. And that is not a matter of inflation adjustment. It is a real cut in nominal terms.

Now, within that overall cut there are some adjustments. Some accounts are cut more, some are increased. They are not increased for frivolous reasons. If we have made an increase, it has been because there is a good rationale for that increase. A couple of the earlier cuts targeted the account that includes the Privacy Office, the Civil Rights Office, offices that need work and need to be strengthened.

So we have scrubbed this bill very carefully. We have basically provided only for current staff on board, and, in a few instances, for staff that we knew needed to be augmented to perform very specific functions. So, we have been conscientious within the context of overall reduction.

Of course, the easiest thing in the world is to rail against the front office or the Department, to rail against the bureaucrats, to say these are abstract, invisible cuts. Let's just cut away, and then beat our chest about how tough we are fiscally. I tell you, we've been tough fiscally, but we have not been irresponsible. We have tied, in each case, our funding recommendation to specific needs of the Department, specific functions that need to be continued or need to be augmented. So we are asking, why should we be the ones to stand up for this administration?

Now, I know not every Republican is in line with the sentiments that have been expressed here. I know there are Members on both sides of the aisle who understand that you need some reasonable level of funding to run a department. And in past years, we have provided that reasonable level, and we have done it again this year. But we are not going to sit here and simply hear all this and then be alone in our defense. So we accept the amendment.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong advocacy for these nonprofit security grants. I, too, have constituencies concerned about these grants, about their continued availability, and have convincing testimony as to the importance of this resource.

We did not have a specified account in our bill, but I am aware that the Senate does, and we will be going to conference. I am glad to assure the gentleman that we will have an open mind about dealing with this in conference. I appreciate that he is not offering the amendment tonight, but we will be very, very happy to work with him going forward.

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I explained earlier, we accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to accept the amendment, but I want to make clear that we are doing it in the spirit that we accepted earlier amendments. That is, if no one on the other side of the aisle is willing and able to defend the Bush administration and their budget request and their departmental operations, then it's not clear to us why we should take that on. We have had a steady stream of invective tonight, a lot of ideology, a lot of bureaucratic bashing, and not very much attention to the specifics of this very carefully drawn budget.

Now, you wouldn't have known it from the last presentation, but let me tell you what this amendment does. The amendment cuts the funding for the general counsel in the Department $1.2 million below President Bush's request. Now, it's not about earmarks. It's not about the history of the parties and their ideologies. It's about cutting $1.2 billion below President Bush's request for the general counsel in the Department of Homeland Security.

Now, Members can make their own decision about whether that's wise. But as for us, we don't intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a modest reality check. I hope that's helpful.

The gentleman from North Carolina gives an impression of great precision in wanting to cut $8,961,000, and he suggests that we might want to debate tonight whether that's exactly the right figure. He suggests that without indicating, as far as I can tell, any fact or any premise on which this very precise number is based. So we will await that with interest, exactly why this much and no more and no less.

Let me offer a little reality check in the form of the language from the committee report. Our committee recommended $14 million for the general counsel.

By the way, that's the start of understanding this. This isn't about bureaucracy, in general. It's not about government fat, in general. It certainly has nothing to do with entitlements. It's not even about the Secretary's office, in general. This is about the general counsel's office at the Department of Homeland Security. This figure was arrived at after close consultation with that office. We recommended $14 million for the Office of General Counsel.

Now, we didn't give them everything they wanted. President Bush requested $1.2 million above this. We cut that. We did not grant that full amount.

Now, 77 staff, 77 is what that appropriation pays for or would pay for. That's equal to the current on-board strength. We do say in the report, and maybe the gentleman disagrees with this, that as vacancies arise in the office, the committee directs the Department to fill the vacancies with positions dedicated to CFIUS reviews and fiscal law.

Now, CFIUS, you might remember, is the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States, better known by reference, perhaps, to the Dubai ports deal. You will remember a great deal of discussion in this body on both sides of the aisle on how CFIUS needs to be beefed up and do a better job. We don't want to have another Dubai ports deal.

That's what we are responding to in consultation with the Department. They need some positions dedicated to those CFIUS reviews so that we do them right. Is there something wrong with that? Is there something wrong with the number 77?

That's the rationale. Since nobody else has provided it, I will. That's the rationale for what the committee has done here, as we said, not granting everything that the administration wanted, but trying to make certain that the staff has the strength they need to fulfill their present obligations and to move in this new direction which CFIUS has provided. I hope that's helpful.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to build on the comments by my colleague from Wisconsin, but I also want to talk a little bit about this amendment and the previous amendment. I tried to talk about it, but did not get recognized by the chairman, unfortunately.

Mr. Chairman, I am very much concerned about the need for us to restore fiscal discipline to this House. I have only been here a little over one term. I am in my second term. I came here with the notion that Republicans would be people who cared about fiscal discipline. We did not care about fiscal discipline as much as I would have liked for us to, but we made a start in the right direction, and I was pleased about that.

Now what we are trying to do is bring more fiscal discipline to this House and to spending. We do have a broken process.

I find it really interesting that the gentleman on other side of the aisle, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is talking about our trying to shut this place down. I think that he has a very funny definition of this open process and this open rule and our being able to offer amendments. That

is the way I thought a democracy operated.

Saying that we are trying to ``shut the place down'' by doing our jobs is a little disingenuous, I think. I think that is coming because in the last 5 months you all have become so used to ramming things through with no opportunity for amendments that you find this a very unusual process. Well, we intend to use the opportunity available to us to offer amendments every chance we get.

He also made the comment that we are taking up the time of this body to do frivolous things. Well, again, this is the job that we are elected to do. We are not taking up the time of the body. We are doing what we are supposed to be doing.

You spent 3 months dealing with what we considered a frivolous exercise in talking about not funding our troops serving overseas, trying to protect us so we can do the very things that we are doing; and you didn't want to give them the money that they needed in order to be able to do that. That is where a lot of time was wasted, as far as I'm concerned.

I want to also talk about some comments that have been made by members of the other party that show that there were some people who made promises that have not been kept.

This quote is from 1-5-2007 from the gentleman from Alabama. ``Today, we made a strong commitment to returning fiscal responsibility to Congress. It is vital that Congress improves its stewardship of the taxpayers' money so we do not pass along today's spending tabs to our children and grandchildren.''

That is a Democratic Member from Alabama. That is what we are talking about here today. We want to make cuts in this unnecessary spending so that we're not passing along these bills to our grandchildren and children.

From the chairman of this very subcommittee, ``This bill mandates that all grants and contract funds be awarded through full and open competitive processes, except when other funding distribution mechanisms are required by statute. This approach creates a level playing field and also ensures that there are no congressional or administration earmarks in the bill.''

Well, that is very different from what we know is going to be happening on this bill, where these earmarks are going to be ``air dropped,'' as we say, later on, after the bill has already been passed, and people don't get a chance to react to those earmarks.

Another Member from Arizona: ``The American people deserve nothing less than a government that is fully accountable and completely transparent. They need to know that their elected Representatives are focused on the public interest, not the special interests and not the lobbyists' interests.''

In the last amendment that was offered, we wanted to do more to increase what is happening in national security. No. You all prefer to spend a lot more money on bureaucracy.

I am very pleased that you are going to take this amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa. I think that is a step in the right direction. But we need to do a lot more of that. We need to cut funding here, and we need to make sure that you fulfill the promises that you made so strongly last fall and at the beginning of this session.

Let's make this earmark process transparent. Let's know what is going to be funded in these bills. Let's put it all out there. And let's have the open debate that you promised we would have.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was just back in the cloakroom getting a little bit of the news of the outside world. And the outside world is focusing on what we are doing here.

There was a long segment on Fox News about the issue that we are discussing here today. And they actually

did a fairly good job of characterizing what is happening here. They talked about the fact that, as a result of a lot of discussion about the plans by the majority to take away our opportunities to have transparency in the earmark process, one person is going to be making those decisions as to whether or not the earmarks are right. We are not going to be able to vote on them.

They said, I think very correctly, that that is not what the American people were promised last year. And one of them, not known as a flaming conservative, I have to say, said what the American people wanted was maximum scrutiny and maximum sunshine on the process.

And I again want to bring some quotes to our discussion to remind people of some of the things that were promised. The Speaker of the House said last December, ``We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve.''

Well, I don't think the American people deserve what they are being given by the majority party. I call it the ``house of hypocrisy'' and an ``attitude of arrogance.'' The attitude of arrogance is so pervasive on the other side that it has become something that even the press is talking about. We don't normally get that kind of coverage on what is happening here in the kind of detail that they are coming out with, and I think it is good for the American people.

Another quote by the majority leader: ``We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of night . . . We need to have earmarks subject to more debate. That's what debate and public awareness is all about. Democracy works if people know what's going on.''

Earlier this evening the chairman of the Appropriations Committee accused us of simply wanting to slow down the process by our bringing up amendments and raising the issues about what this bill does. And yet his own leader says, ``Democracy works if people know what's going on.''

But the majority party wants to keep the people from knowing what's going on. They have an attitude of arrogance. They know best. The people don't know best. Our side of the aisle doesn't know best. Only one or two people know best in here.

Some other Members, some of the freshman Members actually, who were elected last year on the basis of openness in government and reform in government, the gentleman from New York: ``Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to the American people to spend their hard-earned tax dollars in a fiscally responsible way.''

Some of my colleagues have just outlined the deficit problem that we have and how pretty soon almost all the Federal dollars are going to be spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid, with nothing left. We are spending ourselves into a terrible deficit situation.

Another freshman, this time from Florida: ``Congress will not reestablish its credibility and trust with the American people until accountability and oversight is established in Washington.'' A grammatical error there, but that is the quote.

That is what the American people want. That is what they were promised last fall. They are not getting it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the Office of General Counsel in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management account to the FY 2007 level representing a $1.241 million reduction from $14 million to $12,759,000. The bill's current funding level for this office represents a 10 percent increase over FY 2007, enacted.

There has been at least $105.5 billion in Federal spending over 5 years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S. citizen.

This is growing by over $1 billion a day. We know that because every day we walk down the halls of these buildings here, and we see the signs that the Blue Dogs have put out, which remind us what the current Federal debt is and how much it is for every single U.S. citizen.

Spending on the programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, is out of control, and within a generation will force either significant cutbacks in services and benefits or massive tax increases. We know that is already happening because the Democratic majority has already recommended the largest tax increase in the history of this country through their budget they adopted earlier this year.

The Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, for instance, spending that is on autopilot and outside the annual spending process, is occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well- known demographic trends and other factors. That spending, subject to the annual spending process, has also grown exponentially and must be brought under control.

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

We have been hearing a lot here tonight about fiscal responsibility and spending, taxes and deficits. There was a lot of talk about these things during the last election. I think there is a lot of confusion and misinformation out there right now, and I want to take a few minutes to give people a heads-up on what's going on.

This debate and all this talk need some context and some simple facts. Speaker Pelosi said on September 12, 2006, ``Democrats are committed to ending years of irresponsible budget policies that have produced historic deficits. Instead of piling trillions of dollars of debt onto our children and grandchildren, we will restore pay-as-you-go budget discipline.''

If you want to know exactly what's not going to happen to the Federal budget under this Congress, listen to that statement. PAYGO will not touch a cent of the trillions of dollars with which we have saddled our children and grandchildren. Furthermore, new spending will be proposed and taxes raised to pay for it.

That's what we are seeing here, and that's what this debate is all about. The plan is to spend more than ever, repeal tax relief and allow the trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities to go on unreformed, all under the veneer of fiscal responsibility called PAYGO.

I am down here now because I want people to know this, and to know what it means. I want to put this debate in context.

This bill and the others we will debate in the coming weeks mean that the Federal Government is going to cost you more. You are going to pay more than you ever have before in taxes. I think we need to talk about that.

People can deny it and spin it any way they want, but the cost of the Federal Government is going to increase under the current fiscal plan. This is in spite of the fact that Americans already pay a staggering amount of money, but Democrats want more. They always do and they always will, even though the average American worked about 125.6 days in 2005 to pay for Federal, State and local spending.

Guess where the largest part of it went. To the politicians right here in Washington. In 2005, the average American worked about 83 days to pay for Federal spending. Guess what, it's not enough. These numbers are set to increase as far as the eye can see.

Now, let's just put Federal spending into context.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, since the House was not in order, for another minute.

Let's just put Federal spending into context. Do you know that the United States Federal Government is on track to spend more money next year than Germany's entire economy in 2005? Germany is and has been the third largest economy in the world.

There are only two countries in the world with entire economies larger than the U.S. Government budget, the United States itself and Japan. Do you know that next fiscal year, the fiscal year we are considering now, the U.S. Government is on track to spend $700 billion more, $700 billion more. That's more than the entire Chinese economy in 2005.

We are on a spending spree that needs to stop. It's called a tax-and- spend policy. That's the model. It hasn't changed.

So I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and make a very small dent in this unsustainable fiscal policy.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I thank my colleagues for coming and supporting my amendment tonight. I thank them for the points that they are bringing up.

The gentleman from Tennessee is doing an excellent job in his first year here in the Congress.

I also want to thank my colleague from California who made a really excellent point that is something that needs to be made over and over again. When we try to cut back additional spending, it is always a cut, not raising money. Not raising spending is a cut to Democrats. And I think that's a point that needs to be made over and over again. Not increasing spending is a cut. That's not the way the general public sees it.

I also want to point out the fact that we are working very hard to bring us to the point where we could have a balanced budget.

Americans do have to live with a balanced budget. Individual Americans have to. They have to live with the money they have now. But Congress doesn't do that. And this Congress particularly is looking for every way it possibly can to spend additional money and to tax the American public, which is certainly taxed enough.

This seems like, to the majority party, that this, again, is a cut. But

Everett Dirksen, one of my heroes, said, a million here and million there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. That was during the time when they were not billions.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague from Ohio's yielding to me, and I appreciate the comments that he made.

I want to also echo how much I appreciate our colleague from Indiana, who has been in the House for several years and came through a time when the Democrats were in the majority. And as he points out, they were in the majority for 40 years, and they did spend this country almost into a situation where we could not get ourselves out of it. And I appreciate his bringing that up again. We need to do it over and over and over again, reminding the American people what they did.

I, frankly, thought that when they took the majority this time that they would act differently as they had promised in the election. But we now have what we know is a house of hypocrisy because they promised a lot to the American people and they have not fulfilled those promises.

I have been particularly disappointed in the Blue Dogs. As somebody has said, there are these charts all over our office buildings, and they tell us over and over and over that the current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every United States citizen, and growing by $1 billion a day. But where are those Blue Dogs when we need them? Where are they, calling for fiscal restraint? They are going right along with their leadership, going ahead and increasing the deficit every day and doing all that they can to increase the deficit. I would like to know where they are and why they aren't being responsible, as they promised they would be.

And I want to give us another quote to tie into what my colleagues have been saying. This is from Speaker Pelosi in a floor speech she made on January 7: ``After years of historic deficits, this new Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.''

And yet, as has been pointed out over and over and over again, there has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years that has been authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. That doesn't sound to me like we are committed to a higher standard of ``pay as you go, no new deficit spending.''

I am also concerned about what this is doing to the American public and how cynical it is making the people. They can't count on the Democrats to do what they said they were going to do.

We have also heard tonight that we are trying to slow down the process, and I checked about that in terms of what happened last year on this bill. It took 2 full legislative days to debate this bill last year during this process, and the Democrats offered over 70 amendments to that bill. I find it really ironic that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee now says to us, as the Republicans, that we are trying to slow down the process when we are exercising our responsibility as American citizens to try to slow down this incredible spending that the Democrats want to do, increase the deficit, increase taxes. They are saying to us, you are trying to slow down the process.

They wanted this week to do four complete appropriations bills. They frittered away their time for 3 months, blamed it on the minority, saying they are not in control of what is going on here.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 43 at the desk.

I am not aware of what the printing error is.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the bill that we have before us today would increase spending. When coupled with the supplemental bill that the President just signed a few weeks back, would increase spending in the area of homeland security by nearly 17 percent. Now, perhaps people on the other side of the aisle have not noticed, but we have a deficit, a very large deficit in this country. And we still are adding to that deficit every year.

Now, I think Members on the other side of the aisle have noticed this because they have talked about their PAYGO and other principles, that we won't be increasing spending without some way to pay for this. However, with this appropriations bill we are doing exactly that. We are increasing spending by billions of dollars, by 17 percent over last year's level, without paying for it in any way, without reducing spending anywhere else, which means that we are adding to the deficit because of the spending, the additional spending that is in this bill.

Let me just give you a sense of what a 17 percent increase is. If someone outside of this building in the world is making $15 an hour, they would have to get a raise this year to $17.55 an hour in order for their income to keep pace with the spending increase in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that most of the people out there making $15 an hour, or any number you want, are not likely to see their bosses come in and say we want to give you a raise of 17 percent from $15 an hour to $17.55 an hour, not something that they are likely to see. But yet to keep and sustain this level of increase in spending, that's exactly what would have to happen or else we just take more and more and more money out of individuals' pockets so we can spend it here.

Now, I'm sure that people on the other side in support of this bill are going to start to talk about how important this bill is to homeland security. Okay. We will have that debate over the next couple of days about what is in this bill, but what this amendment does is deal purely with bureaucracy. We're not dealing here with any program. We're not dealing here with officers in the field. We're not dealing here with equipment that's being used or computers or anything else for homeland security.

What this amendment says is simply that the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management, the office of the Secretary, purely bureaucracy, gave the Secretary of Homeland Security and the people in that person's office, right now this bill gives them an 11 percent increase, when we're trying to get a deficit down, when we want to, at least some of us do, keep taxes low.

What this bill says is you ought to be able to get by on what you had last year. It is not even proposing that we cut the spending of this bureaucracy, not even proposing that we take the Secretary's office and just their bureaucracy in there and cut it, but simply saying get by on the same amount of money you did last year. Now, how many people in America do that every day but somehow the bureaucracy in Homeland Security can't do that?

And by doing that, Mr. Chairman, this amendment saves $10 million. Now, maybe in a $3 trillion budget it doesn't sound like much, but $10 million is still a lot of money. It's a lot of money to everybody out there. It's lot of money to me. It's a lot of money to you. And $10 million and $10 million and $10 million and we will eventually get our spending down, and that, Mr. Chairman, is how we are going to eliminate this budget deficit and that's how we're going to do it without having the largest increase in taxes in American history, which the other side has proposed to do.

And what is that tax increase for? It's for things like this, for things like taking a bureaucracy of people, sitting around doing phone calls and paper and saying we're going to give you an 11 percent raise. We should not be doing that, not in this environment and not in this bill.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that Members support this amendment, not feed the bureaucracy further and save the taxpayers $10 million.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas. The gentleman from New York said that there were two types of amendments, one that tried to do something that you believe in and others that make statements.

I would like to assure the gentleman from New York that I believe in this amendment, and I think a lot of people on this side of the aisle believe in this amendment because we believe that we need to start controlling costs in this government.

And is this amendment all by itself going to do that? No, of course not, but it will begin the process of doing that, and in combination with a lot of other amendments like it, yes, it will start to control the cost of government, and, yes, I firmly believe in what this amendment is about, in spite of what the gentleman from New York suggested.

The gentleman from North Carolina talked about numbers, and perhaps my numbers are incorrect, but this bill is now at $36.254 billion over and enacted last year $31.905 billion which is a 13.6 percent increase.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

To the gentleman from North Carolina, this is something I guess we'll probably need to work out as we go along because I'm not looking at increase over a baseline. We're looking at increase over actual enacted last year, and maybe we can compare notes. But my notes show that that actual last year was $31.905 billion, and then there was the supplemental which has been added on top of this bill itself.

But in any event, one other thing the gentleman from North Carolina alluded to was that this amendment proposes to cut spending in this area in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. I want to make that clear. This is a definitional thing which we often have problems with in this House and in this building.

What this amendment proposes to do is to leave the budget for the Office of Secretary and Executive Management equal to what it was in the prior fiscal year. That is not a cut. If you have $10 and I give you $10, I take away $10, give you back $10, that is not a cut. That is the same amount of money you had before. What this does do is it prevents the 11 percent increase that is in this bill.

So let's make it very clear in vernacular that if I make $10 an hour and I want to make $11, if somebody gives me a raise to $10.50, it is still a raise; it is not a cut. And that's what is going on here.

We are not proposing to cut this office. We are merely proposing to tell them, do continue your operations on the same amount of money that you did last year. I don't think that is a great leap to ask of what is clearly an element of the bureaucracy, in spite of the gentleman from North Carolina's admonitions that it is not.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

To the gentleman from North Carolina, just to clarify again on these numbers, we agreed that it's $36.3 billion in this bill, and the number you threw out, $34.2 billion, I believe, was the President's budget proposal for this, and that the prior year enacted, 2007 enacted, was $31.9 billion.

Do you have different numbers on that?

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

If I can refer to the gentleman, I believe I heard, and maybe we can sort this out, but I think that if you include

the supplementals on both sides, that we went from $34.2 billion to $39.2 billion, which would be a 15.2 percent increase, perhaps not the 17 I said earlier, but in either event, frankly, whether it's 17 percent, 15 percent or the 13.6, if you leave both of the supplementals out, it's a lot of money. It's billions and billions and billions of dollars of increase.

Some of that increase is a lot more than inflation, multiple times more than inflation, and it's a lot more than taking the growth in inflation and the growth in population and put it together. Most importantly, it's a lot more than personal income growth.

That's something we need to look at, as we are looking at all these appropriations and all of these spending bills. Because if we increase spending faster than people's incomes are increasing in America, it is unsustainable over time unless you continue to take more and more and more of their hard-earned money away from them.

Now, I know that's what many of you on the other side of the aisle want to do. But, A, we don't; and, B, even if you want to do it, eventually you'll run out of space. Eventually, you'll take it all if you increase at this kind of level.

Once again, this amendment does not ask anybody to cut anything. It simply tells this one element, this one part of the bureaucracy in Homeland Security to do, get by and exist on the same amount of money that you had last year.

I thank the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I too want to comment on some of the comments made by the Appropriations Committee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin.

There are two things we are doing here. One was just very eloquently presented by the gentleman from Arizona.

We are trying to say and trying to insist that when these projects, when these earmarks, when these sorts of things appear in these bills, that there is sunshine, that people know what they are, that they can see them and that they are subject to an up-and-down vote, rather than these big slush funds that appear in this bill and others as they are currently constructed.

The other thing we are trying to do here is very simple, and that is saving the taxpayers $21 billion. There is $21 billion more that has been proposed to spend in the Democrats' appropriations bills than what the President proposed to spend.

Now, I might add that I am one of the 160 people who voted for a budget to spend $20 billion less than the President has proposed. It is not like what the President proposed was a flat budget. It is not like the President proposed a budget that didn't increase spending; it did. But what you have done is taken the President's proposals for spending increases, accepted all that, and added to it in most cases.

I think it is very interesting that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee seems so surprised that the amendments that some of us are offering, including the one that I offered just about an hour or so ago, that these were reducing spending that was actually proposed by the administration.

It may come as a surprise to people on the other side of the aisle, but we don't really care who proposed it, whether the President proposed it, a Democrat proposed it or a Republican proposed it. If it is spending more money than we believe should be spent, if it is increasing spending that increases the deficit, if it is further putting pressure, further trying to create a reason to enact the largest tax increase in American history that you all want to do, then we are going to want to stop it. And that is what we are doing.

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

It may be many more than that. It could take many more than that.

These are big issues. These are important things. This is about whether we are going to start to arrest spending where we can, or whether we are going to let it continue to grow and grow and grow. Whether we are going to allow Americans to keep at least the amount of their own money that they keep now, or whether this government is going to continue to tax them and tax them and take more of it. If it is 120 amendments or 240 amendments or 480 amendments, we will stand here and we stand ready to do that.

I would hope that the message would get across at some point to the other side of the aisle that what they are doing is not right, and that these amendments are processes by which we are getting to what is right, which is not increasing spending on everything, not increasing all of these things and trying to keep it under control and making sure that when we do spend the taxpayers' money, we are up front about what it is, about who requested it and why. And that people have an opportunity to challenge that request.

Mr. Chairman, we have begun some amendments and we have a lot more. This is not a joke. This is not silly, this is not something that we don't believe in. This is something we believe in very deeply, and it is something that is important and that's why we are engaged in this fight and will continue to be engaged in this fight.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to clarify again that the gentleman from North Carolina just said that this amendment proposed by Ms. Foxx cuts $1.24 million from the President's request.

It is true that, in fact, it proposes to spend less on the Office of General Counsel, which is the attorneys, than what the President has proposed. But that does not make it a cut. Because what it proposes to do is leave the spending for the Office of General Counsel, for the attorneys, in the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management at exactly the same level they had last year.

I really have a hard time understanding how it is always a cut when it is less of an increase than you want it to be, or than somebody wants it to be, in this case, I suppose, than the President wants it to be. But we are not looking at this as Republican spending or Democratic spending, we are looking at it as spending.

The reason, I am not sure that it's been made quite as clear as perhaps it ought to be, that in the Democrats' budget that you all passed a month or so ago, where you moved towards a balanced budget, and I take you at your word that it's your intention to, at some point, get to a balanced budget, but you did it by enacting, proposing, I guess it's the second largest tax increase in American history, which means that as you increase spending on things, you intend to then balance the budget by increasing taxes.

That is clearly what you are going to do. That is what your budget does, and you have made it very clear through your PAYGO provisions what you intend to do. When you increase spending, going to balance the budget will increase taxes.

So with this amendment and with every other amendment we are looking at, we are saying here that we are not going to increase spending in the Office of General Counsel by $1.2 million. That is $1.2 million of additional spending that will not occur if this amendment passes.

But that means it is $1.2 million of taxes that you all won't raise if this amendment passes. Now that works on this amendment, it works on various other amendments that will be coming up through the evening. So it's more than just an academic exercise about whether or not a certain department's budget should be increased.

It, in fact, affects, Mr. Chairman, people at home today now watching this. Is this $1.2 million that you want to see your taxes increase to spend? I think not. I think most of the people on this side believe not; and that is really what we're talking about, because if you say, as you did in your budget, that you will increase whatever taxes you need to to get to a balanced budget, then this $1.2 million is $1.2 million of money that you will take out of Americans' pockets that you're not taking now.

And it's really more than that, because if this were to go in, then next year there's a new base, and it's a higher base, and if you increase it another 10 percent beyond that, then it's another $1.22 million; and if you increase it again, it's another $1.44 million. And it goes on and on, and so that over a 5-year period this $1.2 million magically turns into about $6 million or so of people's money that gets spent, and which you will propose, undoubtedly, to increase taxes to cover so that you can balance the budget.

We can balance this budget, and we can balance it without taking any more money out of Americans' pockets. And we can balance it by passing amendments like this and simply asking government to live with the money they have now. This is not a cut, just live with the money you have now.

Can't this General Counsel's Office, can't these attorneys operate for another year on the same amount of money that they got last year? I think they can.

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

We do have some concerns on this side about the legislation put together, as we would have on any large bill that spends billions of dollars, but I want to commend my colleague from North Carolina for his fair work and his hard work on this legislation.

With that, I would like to yield to my colleague from California.

I thank my colleague for his comments.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I want to urge my colleagues to support my good friend from Washington's amendment. It is a good amendment because, as a sheriff, he knows, firsthand, homeland security. And what he also knows is the most important thing we can be doing in this time of war is funding our intelligence capabilities domestically and internationally. And what this legislation does is reduce our capacity to gather intelligence through this homeland security appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, I think what my colleague from Washington has offered is a very sensible thing. This bill actually has $23 million less in funding for intelligence resources than the President requested. And what my colleague does is restore the funding level to the prior year's funding for the intelligence-gathering resources of the Homeland Security Department.

I think overall what we have to discuss as a Congress is whether or not we are going to fight an offensive war. Are we going to do the necessary things, the intelligence gathering that we need to do as a country and as a nation to make sure that we are safe and secure when we are dealing with these very complicated threats both internationally and domestically.

We saw what has happened over the last few years with intelligence- gathering capabilities that during the 1990s were decimated. Our intelligence-gathering capabilities were decimated. And what we have to do as a nation is make sure we have the proper funding so we don't have those threats, we don't have those scares, that we don't have that level of war here at home.

So, Mr. Chairman, I commend my colleague for offering this amendment. I urge its adoption. And I think we can do this on a very bipartisan basis to ensure that we have a strong homeland and have the proper intelligence-gathering resources funded by this United States Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to my colleague from the great State of New Jersey.

Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the last word.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the House, and I appreciate the fact that we are taking this amendment up under an open rule which allows for a wide-ranging debate on the important issues of the day.

Now, this amendment is very simple. It saves the taxpayers money. It saves the taxpayers money, Mr. Chairman, and I think that is what is very important for us to understand here on this House floor. If we do not spend this money in the appropriations bill, it will reduce our deficit.

As the chairman of the full committee said in his speech here on the floor a few minutes ago, he believes Republicans are simply filibustering.

Well, he is in the wrong Chamber for filibustering; it is across the hall in the Senate.

What we are doing here today is bringing out the fact that we as Republicans, our side of the aisle, we actually want to reduce spending and balance the budget. We have had some tough times since 2001, since this war began, when we were attacked in 2001. But, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is understand as a nation, we have to cut this deficit and balance this budget and start paying down the national debt. We have to make sure that we have a balanced budget.

How do we begin that process for a balanced budget? It is not by raising taxes, which the other side of the aisle already proposed and actually adopted through their new budget that they put in place this new Congress. They made it clear that they want to roll back to the prior level of taxation, the very high level of taxation that we as Americans faced.

But what we believe in as conservatives, and on this side of the aisle especially, is that the way we balance the budget is not by raising taxes on the American people. We have plenty of income coming into the government, but we have a spending problem here. So with this amendment we are taking a small step, a very small step, but a step nonetheless, that will help us reduce spending.

The chairman of the full committee said they have been very busy spending for the Iraq war, the supplemental vote. Well, as we well know, within that Iraq war funding bill they have plenty of pork barrel spending, plenty of earmarks. Well, we believe over $20 billion in earmarks was in that final version of the bill. They were too busy spending on special interest projects to actually put in the details of this legislation so the American people can see what kind of pork barrel projects they have tucked into the legislation before us.

So first of all, the process is wrong.

Second, the spending is too high. The American people understand that, and they want us to do something about it. As conservatives, we need to take that first step. That first step is offered by my colleague from Iowa, Mr. King, who has offered a very reasonable, very simple, very straightforward amendment that is good for the taxpayer and is good for Americans.

We all care about homeland security, Mr. Chairman. We believe it is in the interest of our government to fund homeland security and national defense effectively, but not blindly. Not simply because a number is put forward, do we have to accept it. And that is what the debate is about here today, about whether or not we are simply going to accept a high level of spending and look the other way while the deficit increases, while the American people are asked to spend more on government through their taxes.

But we have to take that first step. A small step, but a very good, very important step, nonetheless. I will be proud to vote for the King amendment when we get that chance here in a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to come forward with a consensus that these important spending matters deserve an open, honest, fair debate. It is not simply about getting it done quickly. We know that legislation takes awhile to craft. We should have an open debate and allow a real exchange of ideas about how to best spend our homeland security dollars.

Mr. Chairman, the American people understand that their government costs too much. So let's support my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), his amendment here today, that allows us to take a step in the right direction.

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the rules of the House state that all discussions must be directed towards the Chair.

And Members should be reminded that discussions of debate on the floor should abide by decorum and direct their comments to the Chair.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

We've had a long discussion tonight about my colleague from North Carolina's amendment. I certainly thank her for offering it. I think we've had a healthy debate about the size and scope of government.

I think what the American people understand, Mr. Chairman, is that we should have this debate on the House floor. Mr. Chairman, our colleagues should have this grand debate about whether or not to increase the size and scope of government, even in areas of grave national importance. This is a serious debate. This is a very serious debate, and I think the American people should be proud of the kind of debate we're having today on the House floor.

As a conservative, I can see that there's waste, fraud and abuse in all areas of government, even in the Department of Homeland Security. I think we should be wise with how we spend the taxpayer dollar, even in the Department of Homeland Security.

Even if this President requested tons more money, billions more money, as a conservative I would say, no, Mr. President, we don't need those billions of dollars in new spending. And I must tell you, as a conservative I've been outspoken, trying to hold this President accountable when it comes to spending.

Yet my Democrat colleagues, Mr. Chairman, would say the President requested money, more money for the Department of Homeland Security. I think that was valid in this time of war, in this time of great national security issues.

The President requested more money for intelligence spending; yet this Democrat majority in this House, Mr. Chairman, said no to the President's increase when it came to intelligence spending. Instead, Mr. Chairman, the majority decided to spend intelligence money on this debate about climate

change, about global warming. I'm not exactly sure, Mr. Chairman, what this majority was thinking when they allocated intelligence resources, intelligence money to the debate on global warming, but they did. They said that was just.

When the President requested more money for homeland security, a $3 billion increase over last year's funds, the Democrats said that is not enough, and they went $2 billion over that. Mr. Chairman, even in Washington, D.C., $2 billion is a lot of money.

We know that the Department of Homeland Security's well funded, and what we're having a debate on here today, tonight, Mr. Chairman, is whether or not we should lard up the Department of Homeland Security with more bureaucrats at the top level; not people that are screening the airports at the lowest level, not people who are out gathering intelligence at the lowest level, but they're larding it up for the Secretary's budget, for the management's budget. They're not allocating money to get it out on the streets. They're allocating money for more bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. And as a conservative, even if it's a Republican in the White House and a Republican administration, I will say no to that. We don't need more bureaucrats here in Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I offer a second-degree amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us today is a second- degree amendment to my colleague from North Carolina's amendment to the bill.

This second-degree amendment is very simple, very straightforward. Instead of striking $1,241,000 from this legislation in the Secretary of Homeland Security's personal budget for his office, we've increased that number to actually $8.9 million.

What this amount difference is a result of the debate we've had here on the floor. What is very good is that we've had an open debate, an open rule, one of the rare that we've had in this new Democrat majority, Mr. Chairman. This open rule has allowed a free form of debate, which has allowed all my colleagues to engage in this discussion about decreasing the size and scope of government and curbing the excess of the growth of bureaucracy here in Washington.

As a result of this debate, I've analyzed the last amendment debates we had. My colleague from California (Mr. Campbell) offered an amendment that would take the Secretary's budget back to the 2007 level. His amendment would reduce the spending by $9,961,000. Well, that amendment failed, unfortunately. I'm very happy, though, that my colleague from California offered it, though, because the House got to vote on fiscal discipline, and 201 Members of this body voted in favor of striking that $9,961,000 from the bill. Unfortunately, though, 221 voted ``no,'' so the amendment failed.

Well, watching the last series of votes, I also noticed that our colleagues voted to strike $79,000 from the Secretary's budget, as well as $300,000 from the Secretary's budget, which through this debate I really analyze that. I really had to think about those votes and see what the will of the body was on restraining government spending and the rise in growth and the bureaucracy here in Washington.

What I realized is that maybe my colleagues weren't ready to cut $9.9 million. But perhaps, just perhaps, we could try this out and see if my colleagues would cut $8.9 million. Now, it's not quite as much as I would like to cut from the fat of the Secretary's budget, but it's close. It's a savings to the taxpayers.

So let's try this out. Let's have a vote on this; let's have a debate on whether or not we can cut $8.9 million from a budget, if I may state, from a budget as proposed in this Chamber of $36 billion, if I have that correct. Can we cut $8.9 million from a $36 billion budget?

Well, my colleagues, 221 of them said ``no'' to this cutting $9.9 million. Let's see if they will cut $8.9 million; it's close, and it's $1 million. The American taxpayers understand the difference in $1 million. But if we could cut $8.9 million, I think we would be happy. It would be a step in the right direction.

I hope my colleagues concur.

My colleagues would say ``yes'' to cutting $300,000 from this $36 billion bill. They cut $300,000. They cut $79,000. But I wonder if my colleagues would, instead of cutting $1.2 million, which my colleague from North Carolina seeks to do, if they would cut $8.9 million.

Let's try this out. Let's have a debate on whether or not $8.9 million is enough money to cut from this $36 billion bill. Let's see if we can return that money to the taxpayers. Let's see if we can reduce the deficit so we can balance this budget. Let's see if we can cut spending so we can continue the tax cuts and continue the economic growth that we have seen over the last 5 years. Let's see if we can make sure that the American taxpayers get to keep more of what they earn. Let's see if we can cut off some fat, even just a little fat from the Department of Homeland Security. Let's see what we can do to reduce bureaucracy here in Washington.

I am not sure if $8.9 million is the right amount, but I would like to hear from my colleagues to see if they agree or if they disagree.

I would like to hear from my colleagues on whether or not $8.9 million, $8,961,000 is the right amount to cut from this $36 billion bill. I'd love to hear this debate. Some may say it's 10 million, others may say it's 6 million. Let's have this debate. It's only 10 minutes till 10:00 tonight.

We have plenty of time to continue this debate. The American taxpayers can watch us here on C-SPAN and see what good work we are doing here in Washington and see if we are being effective with their dollars.

I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding.

Let me answer the chairman's questions, because I do appreciate my colleague's leadership, and he has crafted, largely, a good bill.

My disagreements are oftentimes with my Republican administration, my colleague in the White House who is of my same party. What they have requested here is a good bit more bureaucracy at the top.

Let's face it, they have mismanaged the Department of Homeland Security. Look at the response to Katrina. I agree wholeheartedly with my Democrat colleagues. But I am of the opinion that simply because they have mismanaged does not simply mean you add to their budget.

I appreciate my colleagues' clapping. I appreciate my colleagues on the other side of the aisle clapping for me. That is so wonderful. I am excited about that. I am hopeful they will vote for my amendment, especially my good friends back there.

But let me tell you something. What I am attempting to do is get the numbers back to last year's spending level, to make sure we maintain this. My colleague from North Carolina said he spoke with the administration and realized that they wanted this amount of money. I have spoken with the taxpayers. They want some more of their money back. They don't want to deal with tax increases.

We need to get back to closer to last year's spending levels on management of the bureaucracy. We saw how the border is still porous. Let's put that money into the border.

We see how FEMA was mismanaged. Let's pour that money into getting people out there with supplies when catastrophic events come. But let's not spend on our bureaucracy here in Washington. Let's bring those numbers back closer to last year's budget levels.

Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to entertain this question. I thank my colleague for yielding.

I would say this. We have no idea what the earmarks are in this bill, because they are not in the bill.

You are asking the same question. We are asking because we don't see any earmarks in this bill because you intend to drop them in during a private meeting.

Yes, none.

Yes, I have, and I publicized it at home. I publicize the ones I do ask.

I ask for full public scrutiny, not just a private meeting between party leaders in this body.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I'd yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I certainly support his amendment.

In the big scope of the Federal budget perhaps the dollars are not large, but before we can really ever attack spending, we have to attack the culture of spending, and you have to lead by example.

And why can't we ask people in the Federal Government, as we ask families all around the Nation, as our friends on the other side of the aisle have recently passed the single largest tax increase in history, they're expecting American families to somehow do more with less. Can't we expect a few of the administrators of this agency to somehow, somehow get by on the same amount of money they had last year?

I encourage the support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to associate myself with the comments of the gentlewoman from Tennessee. I, too, appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Iowa in offering this amendment.

Again, the dollars may be small but the principle is large, and frankly, Mr. Chairman, I really somewhat object to those who somehow suggest that after a budget was passed in this institution, representing the largest single tax increase in American history, that somehow amendments to try to save the people's money are somehow dilatory, are somehow frivolous, are somehow not worthy of debate in this democratic institution.

We spent months, months debating one spending bill on whether or not to support our troops in Iraq, months, and now we hear protests from the other side, hours into a regular appropriations bill. Somehow after hours we've grown tired of that particular process.

Mr. Chairman, I'm worried about this largest single tax increase in American history and what it means to people in my district, the Fifth District of Texas, how it impacts their ability to send their children to college, how it impacts their ability to start a small business, how it impacts their ability to pay their health care premiums. Every opportunity we have to try to get some of that money back to them is an important use of this body's time, a very important use.

And so there are several amendments that have a very simple proposition behind them, and the simple proposition is in this particular Department, can't you level-fund from one year to the next year just that group administering the programs. All over America, after passing this single largest tax increase in the history, we're asking American families to somehow do with less, and all we're asking these people to do is do with the same amount that you had last year. That's all that we're asking, Mr. Chairman.

But there are bigger issues involved here besides the roughly $2,600, $2,700 per family in the Fifth District of Texas who are going to have to pay that single largest tax increase in history.

But we look to the future, and we know what happens if we don't take the first few steps towards fiscal sanity. Already we have been warned by the Congressional Budget Office, we've been warned by the Office of Management and Budget, we've been warned by the Comptroller General what is going to happen to this Nation if we don't do something about entitlement spending, something that our friends on the other side of the aisle refuse to engage in. Social Security and Medicare, in their budget, there's nothing about that.

We've heard from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke: Without early and meaningful action to address the rapid growth in entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost. Too much expenditure of the people's money impacts the people's security.

We've heard from Comptroller General Walker: The rising costs of government entitlements are a fiscal cancer that threatens catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt America.

How are we going to pay for future homeland security bills if we don't take the first few steps towards fiscal responsibility now? Simply level-fund, level-fund, not cut, level-fund the administrative function and lead by example. Lead by example.

Mr. Chairman, we haven't even talked about the secret earmark slush fund yet, which, again, I don't understand. I would think if there was any party who would heed the lessons well of the last election, it would be the party that has become the majority party. They know the people are outraged at earmarks, at the process, and so instead of taking this forward, the new majority is taking us backwards.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to necessarily personalize debate, so I will paraphrase here, but recently the Wisconsin State Journal, and I paraphrase, said the Democrats are now dodging the very reforms they helped to generate, and that with this new secret slush fund, and I paraphrase once again, it would prevent lawmakers from questioning earmarks.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for offering this amendment, and I want to thank him for his leadership in this body, particularly on matters of fiscal responsibility. And I know his district is proud to have him as their Representative.

Mr. Chairman, this is a very serious matter that we discuss this evening. Like many Members of Congress, I commute. I work in Washington, but I live back in my district. And I have two small children that happen to be visiting this particular week, and I think about threats to my children and I know the threat of radical Islam. It is one of the most serious threats that they face. So I take the debate on this bill on homeland security very seriously.

But, Mr. Chairman, I see other threats to my children's future and my Nation's future. And another threat I see is a Federal budget that has grown beyond the ability of the family budget to pay for it. And, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid if I look at a bill that calls for roughly a 14 percent increase from one year to the next, almost twice the level of what the President requested, I question what this is going to do to the future of my children and the future of my country.

Because don't take my word for it, Mr. Chairman; look again at what the Congressional Budget Office has told us, the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of Treasury, the Federal Reserve, both conservative and liberal think tanks. They have told us that the present spending patterns that we have, if we don't begin to change the way we spend the people's money, if we don't reform out-of-control entitlement spending, the next generation will face one of two perils. Either, number one, we will actually see their taxes doubled, just to sustain this rate of growth in spending, their taxes will be doubled; otherwise, we will have a Federal Government that consists of little more than Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security.

I mean, Mr. Chairman, that is what is almost ironic about this debate; that as we talk about plussing up this account by 14 percent, if we don't change the way we spend the people's money, there won't even be a Department of Homeland Security for the next generation. So, again, what we are doing here in this bill is, we are kicking the can down the road, I fear.

And as I look at how money is spent, it reminds me, it is not always how much money you spend. It is how you spend the money. And I don't know if it is the President's fault, Democrats' fault, Republicans' fault, everyone's fault, nobody's fault. But when I see the Department of Homeland Security money somehow ending up helping fund lawn mower races, as the gentleman from Arizona brought to our attention, fund puppet shows, how is that a critical mission within the Department of Homeland Security? That is beyond me. That is beyond me.

So I think we have to look very carefully at how the money is spent. And I am afraid that throwing this much money at this situation is just going to exacerbate this kind of spending.

Now, in my home district, I am very happy when every volunteer fire department in every small community in my district gets a new pumper truck. I am happy to announce that. I wonder, though, with the challenges we face for the next generation if it is really mission critical.

And I am very concerned, as the gentleman from Arizona has spoken, as many others have risen on the floor today, about what is happening in the earmark process. Again, it is not so much always how much money you spend; it is how you spend the people's money.

So the new majority that promised us earmark reform is now telling us that they are going to do something completely opposite. They are going to take away the ability for Members, Members who are on the floor today, with the exception of one, I suppose, to offer amendments to strike these earmarks to get at spending perhaps like the lawn mower races. This is moving in the complete opposite direction of what the majority promised when they took office.

The American people will not stand idly by.

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

First, I want to thank the gentlelady from North Carolina for her amendment. And I want to say, Mr. Chairman, I am very disappointed by some comments I have heard from the other side of the aisle that somehow this is not a worthy debate. I believe one of my colleagues said, I thought I would come to the floor and find us debating something important.

How we spend the people's money, how much money we take from hardworking Americans is a very important matter. How much of the bread we take off of the table of that hardworking teacher in Malakoff, Texas, is a very important matter. How much money we take from the fireman, the fireman in Crandall, Texas, who is working to ensure our safety, and how much of the bread we take off of his table is a very important matter, Mr. Chairman. And not just how much money, but once we take that money, how we spend that money.

We know that the people, the people, decry how the practice of earmarks has been practiced in this House. And I wished when the Republicans were in the majority we would have done a better job. I was often disappointed. I, myself, don't request earmarks, although I know there are many that are worthy.

But at least when this party was in the majority, they woke up and heard the voices of people and said, we need reform. We need accountability. We need transparency. And Members were

given that ability to focus sunlight, sunshine, on those earmarks, and they were allowed a process by which to strike them from the bill.

Now I read a number of quotes from our new Democrat majority leadership. The Speaker said, ``I would just as soon do away with them,'' referring to earmarks. She said shortly after becoming Speaker, ``We have placed a moratorium on earmarks until a new reform process is in place to ensure the integrity of every earmark that is funded.'' A new reform process.

So now we discover, Mr. Chairman, that the new reform process is to take it out of the sunshine, hide it in the darkness, take away Members' ability to strike it from the bill, and give that, albeit apparently, to one individual who apparently is all knowing, all seeing, and all powerful when it comes to these earmarks.

I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that the American people will sit idly by for this practice. Already the Third Estate is letting the people know what is going on. I don't want to personalize the debate, but let me paraphrase from the Wisconsin State Journal. I won't talk about individual Members, but I will talk about the majority.

The Wisconsin State Journal: The Democrats are, and I paraphrase, ``now dodging the very reforms they helped to generate.'' This will ``prevent the public and most lawmakers from questioning earmarks until it is too late.'' Wisconsin State Journal, June 7.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer, ``Five months after,'' and again I paraphrase, the Democrat majority, ``took control, the promises remain unfulfilled.'' And what we have, ``That's a secretive process, and its final product gets a `yes' or `no' vote in each Chamber. This means earmarks will sail through before the press or even most Members of Congress can examine or challenge them.'' The Cleveland Plain Dealer of June 10.

The Mobile, Alabama, Press Register. ``Democrats work ATM,'' automatic teller machine. ``But now that they control the ATM, the Democrats are finding all sorts of excuses to keep the earmark dispenser open for business. Democrats are reneging on their vows of fiscal responsibility just a few months after they won their chance to load the ATM.'' The Mobile Press Register, June 8.

And the list goes on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, there ought to be a message loud and clear from the last election. The people want to reform earmarks. This bill, this Democrat majority, this process, takes us in the exact opposite direction, and it is one more reason we need to support the gentlewoman's amendment.