Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2638) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes.

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 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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as possible.

I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility.

The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is $36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month.

If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the Department.

The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more government do not equal more security.

Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort.

And when I use the term ``responsible,'' Mr. Chairman, I am also stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded.

We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay, assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails.

Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do that. So I don't know what will be the result of this mandate. It is unfunded, and it is going to be very difficult to put in practice. The Department already surveys routinely the most probable jails where the most probable criminal aliens are being held anyway.

Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than those incarcerated in the jails.

These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive national security technology, and taking down employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse.

From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE should

refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal aliens at the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who are raping and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is potentially very dangerous.

There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy as we move forward.

I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department performs certain actions.

At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred.

While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution of the Department's border security mission.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002, and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons, reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in research and technology were largely ignored.

By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better, cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport, x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies of airports.

The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap later today.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended to be.

Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government expects for the grants that we do make.

Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline?

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.

I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and the Senate as the bill moves forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing committee for homeland security in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country and all that need help.

Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up to $800 million just for the urban area grants.

Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already.

Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to $400 million.

And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230 million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant programs, particularly for the urban areas.

I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause.

I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, and I would like to ask the gentleman a question, or ask his comment.

At the end of the bill, in the general provisions, I'll be offering an amendment to cut, across the board, 5.7 percent of the entire bill, across the board.

Even with that so-called ``cut'' in the increase, it will still be a 7.1 percent increase over current spending, taking the budget request that came to us from OMB.

Would the gentleman feel compelled to support that type of an approach?

Well, at the end of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I can't do it now and I would like to have done it at the outset of the debate, under our rules, it can only be offered at the end of the discussion. But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number two, thereby avoiding a veto.

I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still subject to fiscal responsibility.

I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be the responsible way to do it. And I would hope the gentleman and all of his colleagues in the body would support that when the time comes

The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Diaz-Balart. All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 473 provides an open rule for the consideration of H.R. 2638, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for 2008. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill except for those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The resolution also waives points of order against the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI regarding legislating in an appropriations bill and appropriating for unauthorized programs.

During consideration of the bill for amendment, the chairman of the Committee of the Whole may provide priority in recognition based on whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

I am pleased to bring to the floor the first appropriations bill of the 110th Congress under a traditional open rule process. The security of our Nation concerns every American in every State, and it is a priority of every Member of this body. But while the effort to secure our homeland is a bipartisan one, there are clear differences between how the two parties approach it, and the bill demonstrates them.

We have before us legislation that provides more than $36 billion in critical funding needed to address security vulnerabilities identified by the Homeland Security experts. It is a fulfillment of commitments made by Democrats in implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007, which passed the House with a bipartisan majority.

With this bill Democrats are increasing funding for homeland security by 7 percent, or $2.5 billion, over the amount appropriated for it last year. In fact, we are providing close to $2 billion more than what the President asked for in his request to Congress. These increases aren't excessive. They are, instead, the result of the Democrats' commitment to adequately fund security programs which in past years have been talked about, but not sufficiently supported.

These funding increases stand in stark contrast to past Republican decisions to cut money for vital security efforts and to impose unfunded mandates on State governments. My fellow Democrats and I have rejected the Republican proposals for across-the-board cuts in these areas. We feel that they would indiscriminately and unnecessarily sacrifice billions in needed funding for rail, transit, and port security, as well as for first responder grants. And, indeed, the sad truth is that these grant programs have suffered funding cuts every year since 2004. Compare that to the fact that this bill provides over $4.5 billion, nearly double the requested amount, for these critical areas.

More specifically, we have provided $400 million for port security, doubling the requested amount. Similarly, $400 million will go towards rail and transit security grants, more than the administration requested. And we will increase spending for firefighter grants by $138 million. The administration had wanted to cut these funds significantly, but we are increasing them.

At a time of heightened concern about our border security, the legislation will help to secure our borders by paying the salaries of 3,000 new Border Patrol agents, and it also improves the benefits package for Customs and Border Patrol officers to ensure higher recruitment and retention rates. After years of a lack of accountability and questionable government contracts, this bill promotes both accountability and oversight through reforms of the contracting process, and this is amazingly important.

I mentioned our borders a moment ago and I want to return to that subject very briefly. As a representative from western New York, the security of our borders is an issue of great concern to me.

Both our northern and southern borders face unique and separate challenges, and the bill addresses each in turn.

The 3,000 new agents funded by the bill will mean over 17,800 brave men and women will patrol our borders by the end of 2008. And at the same time, we will increase northern border funding by 33 percent, and 500 new agents will be placed there. As important as this is, border security efforts must never blind us to the deep connection we share with our neighbor to the north. Ours is a 200-year-old relationship that has benefited both of our nations immensely. In fact, I often say

that people of northern border communities don't see Canadian towns and cities as being in another country; instead, we see it as one nation with a river running through it.

The travel and trade which cross the northern border every single day between America and Canada are critical to our economy and to the northern economic security. We must never sacrifice our relationship with Canada in a misguided attempt to increase border security.

I have long said that economic security and physical security are not mutually exclusive; we can and we must have both. Unfortunately, the approach to northern border security currently advocated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State is flawed. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, of WHTI, will choke off legitimate travel and trade and sacrifice local economies unnecessarily by imposing onerous border-crossing requirements. WHTI, while well- intentioned, is simply unacceptable in its current form.

For 2 years, I have been working with fellow border members and concerned local groups and Canada and their government to fix WHTI, and I am proud to say today represents a major step forward in that battle. With Chairman Price's help, I inserted language into this bill that will withhold $100 million from the funds required to implement WHTI until a series of our demands have been met, demands that will push both DHS and State in the direction that they need to go, that is, away from requiring expensive crossing documents and towards commonsense, low-cost alternatives, and will keep our border closed to criminals, but open to the families and the businesses which make it so vibrant.

Additionally, the language will require the completion of a pilot project, which DHS is paying for and has not yet started, involving the State of Washington and British Columbia before WHTI can go forward. We see no point in paying for a project only to ignore it. The project will reveal the feasibility of the passport requirements in WHTI. With the 2008 winter Olympics being held in Vancouver, there will soon be an even greater number of Americans traveling across the border there. And this is a perfect way for us to test the requirements of WHTI before it is put in place nationwide, and we are going to make sure the results of that test are known.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this bill. It demonstrates the Democratic commitment to smart security, as well as to ensuring that the money spent by this government goes where it is needed most and is spent wisely, efficiently, and effectively. These are our priorities. Our constituents deserve no less, and our security can afford no less.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), chair of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled myself over the earmark process as the Republicans had it last year.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute more to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to engage Mr. Flake for a moment.

The chairman of the committee made it really clear that you are going to have 30 days to look at the earmarks, whose earmarks they are, and contact them if they are in the bill. The Rules Committee will decide whether you have the ability to strike them or not.

I yield to Mr. Flake.

I wouldn't want you to believe this is going to be the permanent way this is going to run. Given the vast number, the 32,000 that you mentioned, and the fact that we had no budget last year, no Federal budget last year, there was an extra strain on Mr. Obey; and I am confident that the next year will be different.

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

A lot of time has been spent today on the open rule and the open amendment process, and I'd like to give you and anybody else who may be watching some idea of what we can expect.

Some 94 Republican amendments were filed, 16 Democrats. One Republican is responsible for more than 50 percent of that side.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what they are. None of the funds can be used for supporting yoga classes.

None can be used to support art classes. None can be used to support dance classes. None can be used under other programs, any program that offers to support a dance class. And my personal favorite, none of the funds can be used for supporting puppet shows.

There isn't anything in the world in any part of this bill having anything to do with these amendments, but nonetheless here we are. We'll be debating this into the night, but I would ask everybody to listen to those amendments and decide which is serious on homeland security.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the resolution.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following new

section:

Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as

follows:

``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph

(a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with

respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report,

or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of

consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member

initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an

opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening

motion except one that the House adjourn.''.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.