Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have had a wonderful, vigorous and robust debate on the floor of this House for the past couple of days. It has dealt with earmarks and transparency in those earmarks.

I think it is noteworthy that the American people have spoken out, and I thank them for the support that they have shown us and their participation with us in this debate. And I thank them for their awareness of the fact that this is the people's House, that how we spend their tax money is very important. They deserve to know how we're going to spend that on the front end before we vote, and they do expect the reforms that we initiated last year on earmarks to be enacted this year.

They also were asking, Where's the fence? They are aware that there is gamesmanship that is taking place. So, to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I say, Let the gamesmanship stop. Let's be focused on addressing the security of this Nation. Let's be respectful of one another in word and deed.

Mr. Chairman, in response to a comment that was just made, I would remind my colleague that in this day and age and in this time in which we find ourselves, every State is a border State and every town is a border town because of the situation that we find on the southern border of this Nation.

Mr. Chairman, 283 Members of this body voted to build a fence, so it is incumbent upon us to appropriately and fully fund that fence.

I support the amendment of the gentlelady from Florida. I rise to support her efforts. I commend her for this. The bill before us underfunds the effort of building the fence.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 13: In section 405 (page 48, beginning on

line 11), strike ``encouraged'' and insert ``directed''.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa, and I do rise to support his amendment.

As a point of clarification, I think the gentleman from Iowa, who has worked in the business world and has dealt with ICE on employment issues, has such a good understanding of how this works. To the esteemed chairman from North Carolina, who has spent much of his life in academia, I think that what we have got is apples and oranges and what we need to do is pull it together.

Having trained people with ICE who are in the field, who actually would help encourage employers to use this program, it is an important part of internal enforcement for our employers, knowing how to use it, having that tool to be certain that they know how to use the Basic Pilot Program, to be certain that individuals who are going to work for them are indeed who they say they are and that they are in the country legally. That is important for employers. It is an important tool for having immigration enforcement in this country.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 13: In section 405 (page 48, beginning on

line 11), strike ``encouraged'' and insert ``directed''.

Mr. Speaker, last year we passed the Secure Fence Act, which mandated the Department of Defense construct a fence and vehicle barriers along 800 miles of the southern border of the U.S., from California to Texas. And 283 people in this Chamber, many of them Democrats, voted to take this first step in real border security reform by funding a secure fence on our southern border.

But under a new liberal Democrat leadership, actually paying for the fence is a whole different matter. Despite the overwhelming support and a $2.4 billion increase in the Homeland Security budget, the bill before us today actually underfunds the fence by $187 million and ties up an additional $700 million in bureaucratic red tape.

The question is: Why? Nothing has changed. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, drug dealers and possible terrorists continue to slip through the cracks in our southern border while we wait for the fence on the southern border.

Where are those people on the other side of the aisle that were committed to pay for this security fence last year?

Mr. Speaker, it is time to fund the fence.

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

No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they are tired of the type of out-of-control spending that they are seeing from this new majority. They didn't like the spending that was there when we were there. Certainly there are many of us that think that we spent too much, and certainly many of

us worked very hard for the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, that reduced $40 billion of Federal spending.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady of Virginia, and also in support of the 287(g) program.

I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning our program in Nashville, Tennessee, and talking a little bit about that. He gave us some information about why this program works. I would like to expand on that for just a couple of minutes, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a couple of minutes of remarks.

The program in Nashville, the 287(g) program there, is working. We understand that it yields results. You heard about the first week's results from this program.

Now, the reason we need to put our money where our mouth is and the reason the funding needs to support the language in the bill is because this is a program that saves local governments money. And it works. And there is a waiting list to get into this program.

Now, a follow-up on the comments that the ranking member made from the June 10 issue of the Nashville Tennesseean. Fifteen deputies from the Davidson County department underwent training, and now they check the immigration status of every foreign-born person that is booked to that jail.

Also, they have 213 inmates that were held on immigration orders during the program's first 45 days. It is a sharp increase from the 151 metro jail prisoners subjected to immigration holds in the year of 2006. This is paying for itself. It is getting results. That is why this program deserves to be fully funded.

At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his 2 minutes of remarks.

I would yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, precisely, there are 13 jurisdictions that have this program. It works. We need this Nation right. The cop on the beat needs the information to get to these criminals that are on our streets.

Let's fully fund the 287(g). We're looking at $36.3 billion. There is money to do this right and be a good steward of our taxpayers' money.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Bob Iannacone as he retires from his position as Director of Economic Development for the Williamson County Economic Development Council.

Since he first assumed this responsibility in 1991, Bob has been instrumental in attracting corporations looking for a place to relocate and encouraging the expansion and growth of existing Williamson County companies. Together, these efforts have had an impact of approximately one billion dollars to the local economy. Through innovative marketing strategies, including the award-winning Economic Development Showcase program, Bob has ensured that corporate leaders around the country and around the world know that Williamson County is a great place to do business, and a great place to live.

A proud veteran of the United States Air Force, Bob Iannacone has also served our community through his work with multiple non-profit civic organizations and has impacted countless lives. Again, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking Bob for his contributions to our nation and to Tennessee. I'm certain that his wife, Pat, children and grandchildren are all proud of the outstanding work he has done to improve not just the economy, but the quality of life in Williamson County.

Mr. Speaker, we are hearing illegal immigration is a big debate. There is a lot of passion on this issue.

Last year, Congress took the right step in passing the Secure Fence Act. It was the right thing to do. It puts 800 miles of fencing in place, both physical and electronic borders, on our southern border.

Now, authorizing it is one thing, but paying for it is another matter. That duty has fallen to the new liberal leadership here in the House. Even though they have increased Homeland Security spending by $2.4 billion, a lot of that is going to go into global warming.

They have cut funding for the fence by $187 million, compared to last year's budget. You are going to hear a lot about this as we begin our appropriations process today.

As we work on this Homeland Security bill, they will claim to have budgeted $1 billion for the fence, but they are withholding $700 million of that while we go through bureaucratic red tape. We have got to be certain we don't hurt the environment, all the while 4,500 illegal immigrants cross the southern border every day.

It is disgraceful. Do not delay the fence. Fund it. Take action in the appropriate matter. The hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress is at it. Stand up for the fence.

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

Mr. Chairman, you know, it is amazing that the liberal leadership in the House is living up to the moniker of the hold-on-to-your-wallet Congress, and we see that they can't even get out of paragraph 1, Title I, of the bill without spending more money.

And I want to commend the gentleman from Iowa for offering his amendment. Sounds really simple, $79,000, make a reduction of $79,000 in spending and make it out of the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management. It's the right type thing to do.

In my district in Tennessee, people don't like what the Federal Government spends, and we are hearing from our constituents. They are looking at this bill, $36.3 billion, 6 percent more than was requested, 13.6 percent more than last year. And in the middle of all this money, we can't find a way to fund the fence, which is one of the things that people want to see, securing our southern border?

Now, my constituents are upset about that. They know that this is hypocrisy. They know that people are trying to skirt around the edges. They have caught on to this secret slush fund and going back to the way they were and the way things used to be done. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it's something that they don't like, and they are hopeful that we are going to be down here making certain that we put some sunlight on what is taking place.

When you've got a group that is so addicted to the taxpayer dollar that they cannot get out of paragraph 1, Title I, of that bill without spending more money, you've got a problem. And my constituents know that that problem is not that the taxpayers aren't sending enough money up here. My constituents know that the problem is the Federal Government who has a spending problem. They know that it is the bureaucracy that has too much power over how that money is spent, and they know that it is the government that has a ceaseless and insatiable appetite for their hard-earned dollars.

So I commend the gentleman from Iowa. I commend him for being diligent and reading the language in this appropriations bill. I commend him for being diligent and making certain that he goes through this bill to find ways to reduce what would be spent, to cut out the waste, to look for areas where it can be pulled in and tightened up and reductions can be made.

You know, I know a lot of people in this House didn't like the Deficit Reduction Act, when we made a step in the right direction, reducing, cutting in that 2006 Deficit Reduction Act, cutting more than $40 billion, and poof, it all goes away with one stroke of their budget pen. Given the opportunity, they're going to spend more, and they're going to hide it and not tell you exactly where it is.

And the issue of earmarks, Mr. Chairman, it comes up in nearly every conversation that we're having in our districts. Let's have a way to evaluate those earmarks. Our constituents deserve to know before that vote takes place rather than after that bill comes out of conference committee.

In order to fund all this fun that the leadership is having, we face the single largest tax increase in American history. It is certainly, certainly inappropriate, and going in here and beginning to find places to make cuts, as the gentleman from Iowa has done, is the right type way to go.

If you cannot find $79,000 out of a $36.3 billion budget, you've got a problem. If you can't reduce some out of a 6 percent increase more than was requested, 13.6 percent more than last year, then you've got a problem. It is a spending problem. It is something that needs to be dealt with by the Federal Government.

Offered By: Mrs. Blackburn

Amendment No. 111: Page 11, line 24, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by 1,684,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 25, insert before the colon the following:

``for the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide for at

least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of

additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and

sensors in the following amounts and areas: $66,000,000 for

extending from 10 miles west of the Tecate, California, port

of entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of

entry, $1,360,000,000 for extending from 10 miles west of the

Calexico, California, port of entry to 5 miles east of the

Douglas, Arizona, port of entry, $317,000,000 for extending

from 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry

to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas, $218,000,000 for

extending from 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port

of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port

of entry, and $723,000,000 for extending 15 miles northwest

of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville,

Texas, port of entry''.

Page 15, line 14, strike ``makes every effort'' and insert

``makes a reasonable effort''.

Page 22, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $200,000,000)''.

Page 40, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $150,000,000)''.

Page 40, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $200,000,000)''.

Page 44, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $1,134,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, sales and marketing is my career field, and I know a little bit about the branding of products and the value that is there, and sometimes the name of the product or the idea can make or break the success of the product. Marketing is not always about the product. Sometimes it is about selling a slogan.

Yesterday we debated the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, which sounds good, right? No one wants human cloning. But what this bill does is just a very clever marketing ploy that sounds good, but leaves open Pandora's box to a world of dangerous interpretation.

Let's make it clear: All this ban does is to prohibit a clone from living inside a mother's womb. It doesn't ban destroying clones from experimentation, just for human life. So that is good.

But how would this House leadership react when a woman breaks a law and decides to have a cloned embryo inserted into her womb? Would they force her to abort the clone inside of her?

Columnist Charles Krauthammer, a prominent supporter of embryonic stem cell research, says, ``This practice sanctions the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in modern scientific history, the creation of cloned human life for the sole purpose of destroying them in the name of science.''

Mr. Speaker, life is a gift, not a science experiment. Let us have the decency in this Chamber to treat it as such. I strongly opposed the bill and urge all those that believe in the beauty of life to do the same.

Today, we debate embryonic stem cell research. Republicans are often categorized as opposing stem cell research. The truth is that Federal funding for stem cell research has increased by 60 percent since 2004 and was nonexistent before 2001. I support ethical scientific research when it does not depend on the destruction of life and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

The distinguished majority leader just mentioned that it is a debate about life, and, indeed, this is a debate about substance, Mr. Speaker, and it is also a debate about life, clear and simple, and protecting life. Because this bill would divert funds from promising leads of adult stem cell research that have shown large benefits, even one of those of being a cure for Type I diabetes, something that we hear about and there has been tremendous research on. It has shown remarkable promise, and this is a great example, in using immature brain cells and eyelet cells from living donors to develop the insulin-producing eyelet cells that are found lacking in people with diabetes. And by using these from living donors or adult brain cells, instead of embryos, science now has the potential to cure diabetes. It is a great example and lesson for us as we talk about the research that is going on with cord blood, with adult stem cells, and now we are learning with skin cells, producing results.

Let's not stop funding this research in order to chase after something else. Let's continue to do productive, results-producing research on which we all agree. And, as we do this, let's protect the sanctity of human life and not cheapen our efforts by disrespecting that life.

I urge my colleagues to vote against Senate bill 5.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about the need for this Congress to address the rising energy costs across America. Gas prices are continuing to rise, and our energy needs across our country continue to increase. The American people expect us to do something about this, to solve the problem.

Yet the liberal leadership of this Congress is missing in action. Instead of

coming forward with a real plan to solve our energy problems, they are preparing to recreate the energy crisis of the late 1970s. Are the American people really ready for long lines, rationing, and higher prices?

The policies of the 1970s should have been a wake-up call for us. But instead of instituting a plan for American energy independence back then, we just kicked that can a little further down the road.

So today, my GOP colleagues and I will unveil a multi-tiered plan that focuses on innovative ways to create new American sources of power through conservation exploration and cutting-edge technologies. We will act to fill the need.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a subject that is first on the minds and the wallets of the American public, and that is the cost of rising energy prices.

We are in the middle of the summer, and prices at the pump are above $3 a gallon in much of America. The liberal leadership was going to fix the high gas prices, and they have responded by offering no solutions. They offered so-called ``price gouging'' legislation, but it did nothing to address the root problem of high gas prices.

The American public wants innovation, not procrastination. They want energy exploration, not bureaucratic red tape. They want this Congress to do their jobs and put forth a plan that will power this country, self sufficiently, into this century and beyond. The liberal leadership, meanwhile, is missing in action on the issue.

America needs to change the way we look at how we produce energy, and in the next couple of weeks the Republican Conference will take the lead in unfurling a long-term energy plan for the future. It will not only address our immediate power concerns but those for decades to come.