Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 24: Page 9, line 17, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $195,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 25: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

None of the funds in this act may be used to provide

engineering services to water and sanitation programs in

India, to enhance its relationship with the University of

Belgrade and to enhance its relationship with the Mongolia

University of Science and Technology.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 18: Page 5, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $55,729,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 19: Page 52, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $1,203,480,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 20: Page 8, line 11, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $203,082,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 21: Page 50, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $13,860,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 16: Page 38, strike lines 7 through 13.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 18: Page 25, line 14, after the second dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $27,950,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 20: Page 17, line 3, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $19,224,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 22: Page 11, line 21, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $55,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 23: Strike Section 105.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, first I wanted to thank the distinguished majority leader, thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, thank the Republican leader for all of their efforts to bring us to the point where we are at the moment.

I think we've certainly heard much about the process and procedures that will take place under this anticipated agreement, but I think it's very important to note for the entirety of the body, and particularly for those of us who have spent a lot of time on the floor since this debate ensued, that with this agreement what we will see going forward after these first two bills is that we will see earmarks in the bills. We will see transparency. We will see the ability of Members to be able to strike at those earmarks. That is what I believe I have heard this evening. That is what much of this debate has been about, lo these many hours. I, for one, believe that to be a good thing.

I believe I heard that there is hopefully an expectation of open rules. I understand the majority leader's caveat. I understand there is an anticipation of UCs, as historic norms dictate. I understand there is an anticipation that substantive amendments will be accommodated. I understand that substantive amendments may be in the eye of the beholder and men and women of good faith must work together, and I understand there is an anticipation that if bills are of historic norms, that debate time may be of historic norms as well.

But I did want to signal that, if I have the proper understanding, that I wanted to thank the majority leader, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and the Republican leader for their efforts to bring the ability of Members to be able to see these earmarks and challenge these earmarks. I assume that, as I have spoken, if any of the gentlemen involved believe that my understanding is incorrect, I would be happy to yield time to them.

Seeing no one believing my understanding is incorrect, again, I want to thank them for bringing us to this point, and I withdraw my objection, Madam Speaker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I listen to the debate, Mr. Chairman, and I do believe this is an important bill, and I believe there is a lot of

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Offered By: Mr. Hensarling

Amendment No. 31: In title I, under the heading ``Office of

the Secretary and Executive Management'', after the first

dollar amount insert ``(reduced By $138,000)''.