Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, tax receipts are up, and the deficit is down. Pro-growth policies are working. The President's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have had an enormous impact on our economy and on government revenue.

The Office of Management and Budget announced today that the Federal deficit is actually $205 billion, the lowest since 2002, the lowest since the tax cuts went into effect. What this shows is that with pro- growth policies, the economy grows. And when the economy grows, tax receipts to the government go up as well. When that happens, we can balance this budget if we have the reasonable approach of restraining spending and keeping in place the tax cuts that were put in place in 2001 and 2003.

I urge my colleagues to continue this pro-growth policy of keeping taxes low and helping the American economy grow and prosper.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague and friend from Arizona for offering this amendment. It gives me an opportunity to explain the importance of this project and this funding to the Members of this body.

I am actually very much in favor of transparency through the appropriations process. I have spoken a number of times here on the House floor about that. I think it is important that Members can judge for themselves the funds that we are spending as the Federal Government. It is a very serious business we are in of spending taxpayer dollars, and I don't take that lightly.

I am thankful for the opportunity to talk about the Mitchell County Development Foundation and the problems and challenges that Mitchell County is going through, but their hope and the solution they are putting forward.

Mitchell County, as the amendment sponsor mentions, is a very hard- hit county. If you look at this graph of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina, we have been hard hit over the last 20 years in the loss of manufacturing jobs due to Federal trade agreements, to a large degree. We are going through a transition period of manufacturing jobs in North Carolina.

Furthermore, in Mitchell County, which was a manufacturing county, you can look at this listing of the job losses they have had over the last 10 years. In the last 5 years, Mitchell County has lost 2,500 jobs. Now, that may not seem like much to big city folks, but to a small, rural Appalachian county with a workforce of 7,500 people, it is devastating. It is absolutely devastating.

When you are in a rural community, you have to figure out ways to innovate, to actually keep your people making a living. What Mitchell County has done through their development foundation is come up with a way to do that, to take these craftsmen who worked in textiles and furniture, to actually help them create a small business. And through this project, 51 small businesses have been created, two-thirds in my district.

But this is a small, rural county, and they are trying to do the best they can through an innovative process. This small amount of Federal money will help them in a number of ways, such as access other grants and bring in more knowledge about this process and about what is happening in this county, to bring more funding and resources to bear for this county.

Mitchell County has the third highest unemployment rate in the State of North Carolina. It has a 38 percent dropout rate in their high schools. And what they're trying to do through this business incubator is create small businesses so that those unemployed can find employment. Beyond that, they are also trying to use the resources that they gain from selling their products to provide scholarships for these high school students, to encourage them to stay in school. This is a good project and is a worthy use of Federal taxpayer dollars and I'm proud to stand in the well of this House and to defend this and tell my colleagues that it's worthwhile for the taxpayers to spend this money.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

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

Absolutely.

There's already been a real influx of interest in giving grants to this. Right now there's about three or $400,000 that is contingent upon this to a large degree.

If the gentleman will yield, I just wanted to correct the chairman on what I said over those torturous 3 days, in your words, on this House floor. I was simply asking for earmarks to be public.

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

I thank the chairman.

To close on this matter, Laura Bush, the First Lady, decides what the theme is for the White House Christmas, and she decided this last Christmas it would be the Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, the Gloria Houston book that we're discussing here. Gloria Houston, who grew up in the mountains of western North Carolina, my district, who gave her book to this community for their business incubator, and it's unfortunate that there's so much discussion here on the House floor about this business incubator, but it does bring to light what is important for this community.

Laura Bush, the First Lady, said at the time: ``This is a very wonderful American story. They all worked together, the people in the town, to figure out a new industry for themselves.''

I'm trying to assist in that and I think the taxpayers should assist in that. And I'll tell you why. Mitchell County has been broken by trade agreements made here by the Federal Government. And when the Federal Government breaks it, they should help fix it. And that's all we're trying to do. This small amount of taxpayer dollars can help enormously.

I submit for the Record the USA Today story about Mitchell County and their recovery.

[From USA Today, Dec. 5, 2006]

Town Hangs Hope on Holiday Trees

Project Spruces Up Morale After Layoffs

(By Kathy Kiely)

Washington.--In Gloria Houston's 1988 children's classic,

The Year of the Perfect Christmas Tree, a combination of

pluck, tenacity and never-say-die optimism salvages the

holidays for an impoverished little girl.

This year, residents of a small town in the same

Appalachian hills that inspired Houston's story are hoping to

reproduce its magic for their hard-luck community.

During the past four years, closings and layoffs at local

textile and furniture mills have eliminated more than 2,500

jobs in western North Carolina's Mitchell County. ``We have

lost one-third of our manufacturing base,'' says Shirley

Hise, director of the local Chamber of Commerce. ``It has

been devastating for our county.''

Even so, the people of Mitchell County are experiencing

what local congressman Patrick McHenry calls ``a glimmer of

hope.'' Houston's generosity and Hise's hard work are helping

county residents tap a vein of creativity and find new ways

to make a living. And this holiday season, Americans can help

them out--and, at the same time, decorate their homes in

presidential style.

Last week, when she hosted the annual unveiling of holiday

decorations at the White House, first lady Laura Bush went

out of her way to give a plug to the handmade ornaments

provided by Mitchell County artists. ``This is a very

wonderful American story,'' she said. ``They all worked

together, the people in the town, to figure out a new

industry for themselves, and they came up with making these

wonderful ornaments.''

The media-savvy first lady even provided some direction for

the TV crews on hand: ``When you're in the west reception

hall or in the visitors' reception room on the east side, I

hope you'll be able to get there to get some B-roll of those

trees and see these beautiful, handmade ornaments.''

Mitchell County's contribution to the White House holiday

decor is the result of a brainstorm Houston had in 2003 after

being invited to be grand marshal of the Christmas parade in

Spruce Pine, Mitchell's county seat.

After hearing about the community's problems, Houston

donated the rights of her book to Spruce Pine and suggested

local officials market the town as ``the home of the perfect

Christmas tree.'' Last year, the community cut the ribbon on

a retail store featuring handcrafted items inspired by the

book. They're all made by local artisans.

These aren't amateur holiday fair items: The curvilinear

red, green and walnut Carolina ``snowflakes'' hanging at the

White House are the creations of Billie Ruth Sudduth, a

basket weaver whose work is displayed at the juried

Smithsonian craft show. The White House trees also feature

handblown glass ornaments by Virgil Jones, whose work is on

display in galleries in Asheville, N.C.

Sudduth taught several local women how to make the

snowflakes so they could help her keep up with demand. At a

basket-weaving class she taught to raise money for the local

homeless shelter, ``I saw some talent,'' she says.

No one is suggesting a few cottage industries will replace

the thousands of manufacturing jobs that once powered

Mitchell County's economy. McHenry, who called the project a

glimmer of hope, also notes it's not a light at the end of

the tunnel.

But project participants say it has helped lift the gloom

that enveloped Mitchell County after all the layoffs. ``This

project has really turned the county upside down with

excitement,'' Sudduth says.

Patti Jensen, who manages the retail outlet in Spruce Pine,

says her biggest problem initially was persuading local

craftspeople to provide her with enough inventory to keep

pace with sales.

``They were so skeptical . . . that anyone would want to

buy what they make,'' Jensen says.

After one of Marquitta Holdsclaw's art glass plates sold

for $600 at a local silent auction, Jensen says she found the

artist in the parking lot in tears. ``It just blew her away

that anyone valued what she was doing,'' Jensen says.

Holdsclaw's plates are available for as little as $39.50

through the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree store. An

online catalog can be found at

homeoftheperfectchristmastree.org.

Working on their own poses challenges that employees of big

companies never face, the artisans concede, especially ``the

very real problem of health insurance,'' says Sudduth, 61.

She says it costs $700 a month to maintain her coverage.

Jim Buchanan, a woodworker who built the interior of the

Perfect Christmas Tree shop and designs items for the

catalog, estimates he's making half of what he did before the

Henredon furniture plant where he worked was shuttered in

2004. But there are other compensations. ``I'm making the

type of furniture I like to make, so it's more enjoyable,''

Buchanan says.

Mike Queen, a local metal worker who is trying to grow his

artisanal blacksmithing business, agrees. ``I'm enthused

about it,'' says Queen, who employs several people laid off

from local plants. ``It's good for the community. There's so

many small towns in the country that seem like they're

dying.''

The idea went by the book

Gloria Houston, whose book inspired the Home of the Perfect

Christmas Tree store in Spruce Pine, N.C., says research she

did as a graduate student prompted her to suggest the

project.

Houston, a former Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings scholar at the

University of South Florida, says she was researching the

namesake of her fellowship when it struck her that Rawlings

had inadvertently thrown a lifeline to her tiny Florida

hometown, the setting for her classic novel, The Yearling.

``I realized Cross Creek would have long since disappeared

had it not been for The Yearling,'' Houston says.

``Everything there had something to do with it.''

Years later, she decided to see whether her 1988 children's

book, The Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree, could do the

same for her North Carolina Appalachian home.

Houston's parents operated a country store in western North

Carolina for more than 50 years. In writing the book, she was

inspired by stories of their circumstances (her father told

her about once giving up his Christmas dime so his sister

could have a doll).

Not wanting the same crushing poverty to reappear in the

region, Houston donated rights to the book to Mitchell

County, and the Christmas tree store project was born. ``I'm

so proud of the people here and their many skills and

talents,'' she says. ``Now they're being put to work in their

own county.''

In closing, I want to tell you, Mitchell County is going through struggles, and I appreciate this opportunity to bring attention to this. It is a worthwhile project. It is a worthy project. And I think worthy projects that have a Federal element to it should be funded by the Federal Government, and we should be interested in doing that. Not overspending, but spending wisely and allowing Members to step forward and publicly say what they think is a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars. I care very much about that. And I care very much about helping Mitchell County rebound, to bring down that dropout rate in their high schools, to get businesses growing and to reduce their unemployment rate.

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

I thank my colleague from Ohio for offering this amendment.

We're debating now on a 3.5 percent across-the-board cut to an appropriations bill. It's an amazing thing in Congress; with one vote, we can slash $1.3 billion out of an appropriations bill.

What we're debating here is not simply a small cut. We're debating on whether or not the American taxpayers can depend on the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. We're trying to determine what kind of economic growth we'll have as a Nation, based on how much the government spends in taxes.

This is more than a debate about spending. This is a debate about the size and scope of government.

Well, let's put the facts on the table. The American Government costs $2.7 trillion a year. That is the largest government on Earth. And further perspective here: It's the largest government in the history of mankind.

Now, to put this further into perspective, there are only two economies outside of the United States that are equal to the size of our Federal spending. That's Germany and Japan. And what is amazing about this, what is absolutely amazing about this, is that we have a Federal Government that's larger than most economies on Earth. In fact, our Federal Government spends more than the whole of China's economy.

Now, that's simply amazing. I think it shows that, while we're debating on extending the Bush tax cuts, the American people understand that we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem here in the United States.

This Congress is addicted to spending. In fact, in just a week's time, they appropriated $100 billion. Now, that's fast work even for Washington, DC.

The American people, Mr. Chairman, understand that we need to tighten our belt. A 3.5 percent across-the-board cut is a good start. That'll save $1.3 billion of the American taxpayers' hard-earned money.

I commend my colleague for offering this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

I want to thank my colleague from Texas for putting together a great bill. I know he has been a long-time advocate of the best care possible for our veterans in this country. And as a military general, I want to commend him for the great work he has done on a bipartisan basis. And I thank you for that, Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to the shortcomings of the Department of Veterans Affairs in addressing the infrastructure needs of community-based outpatient clinics. These clinics provide convenient care to our veterans on an outpatient basis.

There are currently 64 pending clinics that have received approval from the VA either in fiscal year 2007 or fiscal year 2008. One of those clinics is set to be established in my district in Hickory, North Carolina. When opened, this clinic will serve approximately 10,000 veterans on an outpatient basis annually. However, since the VA Mid- Atlantic Health Care Network announced last June that the clinic in Hickory would open in January of this year, there has been nothing but delay after delay after delay. Now, veterans in western North Carolina are frustrated with these delays, as many of us are, and there seems to be this common issue throughout the system.

This particular clinic has been in the works in some way or another for roughly 12 years, Mr. Chairman. The time is up for delays, and veterans of these 64 regions are entitled to answers.

Last month, my two North Carolina colleagues in the Senate and I formally requested an update about the status of the outpatient clinic in Hickory. Unfortunately, we have yet to receive a response to our inquiry. Our veterans, I believe, deserve better.

I would ask that as this bill moves forward to the Senate and to conference, the chairman and the ranking member work to get answers from the Department of Veterans Affairs, answers to why we have these continued delays for pending outpatient clinics. Veterans in Hickory, North Carolina, and across the country have sacrificed too much for our country and deserve to have, at the very least, convenient health care. They deserve a proper explanation and progress report as well.

I also want to finish by commending the chairman for his, again, hard work on increasing funding for our veterans. I know that on both sides of the aisle we are very pleased with the work you've done, both the chairman and the ranking member, and we are looking forward to passage.

Mr. Speaker, my Democrat colleague is misinformed. We've had a big debate this week between Republicans and Democrats about the size and scope of government, whether or not there should be a secret slush fund for earmarks. And you know what? Today, what's happening here today is that this body is coming in the conservative direction.

My voice is weary, but my spirit is strong because conservatives have a victory that we're very close to achieving here today because we've brought pressure on the Democrat leadership to free up, to make public, to be honest about the earmarks they have put in and a slush fund they have put into this appropriations bill.

And the American people should be proud because finally conservatives are returning to their roots and talking about restraining government spending.

I'm very proud of the actions that my conservative friends are taking on this House floor to hold the Democrats accountable for their slush fund, their secret earmarks and their pork-barrel projects. And I urge the body to move in the conservative direction.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, I want to fully understand the agreement put forward.

I ask the majority leader and the Appropriations Committee chairman, as I understand it, laid out through this colloquy and this series of questions, there are three separate issues at hand.

First, the House rules under that unanimous consent agreement Monday night, the House rules will revert to the point of order that Republicans put in place in the last Congress, the Congress put in place, that Members can lodge a point of order against earmarks; is that the case?

With all due respect to the minority leader, I was trying to get a commitment from the majority leader since they are in fact in the majority, but I would be happy to yield to my Republican leader.

Does the majority leader concur with that?

I am happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I certainly want to understand this agreement, and since it is a unanimous consent put before the House, we need to have unanimous consent to proceed with that. I want to understand the three elements of this rule and since the majority leader does schedule the floor, Madam Speaker, I want to make sure I understand the agreement since you actually control the floor.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, as I understand it, there are three elements to this agreement. I want to actually have on the record what this agreement is, not simply a discussion behind closed doors, because as we heard earlier today, Madam Speaker, as some of us heard earlier today, there was an agreement reached last night and then there was a change of heart from the majority and leadership on the majority side. And I want to ensure we have a proper understanding of what that was, instead of what we read in the papers and the rumors we hear.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, I wanted to lay before the House what

the three elements, as I understood it, are. And I have full faith. I know the gentleman is an honorable man. I am not questioning the integrity of any of my colleagues in this process. I certainly have the utmost respect for the majority leader and the Appropriations Committee chair. But I actually want to understand the agreement and the trust you have, and I want to make sure that the House understands what the agreement is.

Reclaiming my time, actually the final question would be: Is it the intent and the commitment from the majority that future appropriations bills, save by tradition the legislative branch appropriations bill, would come to this floor under an open rule?

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, this past March, Burke County authorities pulled over an SUV in Morganton, North Carolina, packed with 11 illegal immigrants. Local law enforcement officials were forced to release the illegals after being notified that there were not enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents available to check on the group's immigration status, even though they admitted that they were illegal.

Law enforcement officials, not the illegal aliens, were handcuffed that night on I-40. Our hands were tied by red tape and bureaucracy and underfunding.

The 287(g) program is working efficiently in my home county of Gaston, and our sheriff there, Sheriff Cloninger, is doing a fantastic job of cross-training deputies to also enforce our immigration laws of this land and gives them the authority, the legal authority, to investigate, detain and arrest illegal aliens on civil and criminal grounds. It paves the way for local law enforcement to be a part of our homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, a major contributor to America's illegal immigration problem is the inability of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service to process legal immigration applications in a timely manner. USCIS uses horribly antiquated systems for processing applications. So antiquated, in fact, they are still tracking immigration applications using paper and sending them around the country with the U.S. Postal Service.

Every customer of a major bank in this country can track his or her accounts, payments, and transactions on line in real time. But the Federal Government is still using stone age technology, or paper age, rather, when it comes to the basic functioning of granting citizenship.

Take, for instance, a constituent of mine, Mete Adan. Mete Adan actually was born in Turkey. He spent 16 years trying to become a United States citizen the right way, the legal way.

My office has worked with him for a number of years in fact, helping him through this bureaucratic process and cutting through this outdated redtape. But due to the inefficiency of the current system, which processes over 7 million immigration applications per year using paper printouts, Mete's case has been a 2\1/2\-year debacle marked by mistakes, errors and blunders.

The amendment I am offering today would prevent this sort of horror from continuing to happen in the future.

A few years ago, USCIS embarked on a major technological overhaul for how it handles the millions of immigration applications it receives every year. The problem, though, is that they are not really putting this into place fast enough. That is why I am proposing that we take $30 million and apply it to carrying out the strategic information transformation through USCIS.

Their plan includes on-line accounts that Federal agencies and applicants themselves can use to track their immigration status as it moves through the initial application process, to background checks, to adjudication and to final approval. It is a very commonsense way for us to track immigration applications.

Beyond that, what we have to understand is USCIS estimates that it handles 7 million immigration applications using paper today. We should use Information Age technology to make sure that we have a fair process for those seeking to come to our country, and thereby reducing illegal immigration in the process.

But the bulk of those 7 million applications, applications for citizenship and non-immigration residency, require up to 11 different forms apiece. That means the USCIS has to handle tens of millions of forms annually just to keep track of the people currently in the system. That is why there are just reported 15,000 pending cases from the 1986 amnesty plan passed by Congress and enacted into law. That is right, 21 years later there are still more than 15,000 unresolved cases.

If we want people to immigrate to the United States legally and come to our country without sneaking across our border or breaking our laws or coming under the cover of darkness, then we must remove the barriers of illegal immigration.

The $30 million I am proposing to devote to the USCIS strategic transformation will significantly aid that process.

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

I certainly appreciate it. I thank my friend and colleague for yielding. I agree with you. USCIS should be fee-based and continue to be fee-based. However, in discussions with them, I realize we have a severe problem and they're not going to actually put in place this plan until 2013. And so the time frame I don't think is fast enough, and I think that is very deserving for us to appropriate funds so we can actually have a more efficient process.

No matter where you are on the immigration debate, whether you want amnesty or border security, this actually is a pretty sensible thing from both sides.

If the gentleman will yield.

I spoke last night about a lack of competence within some of our bureaucracies, even those led by Republicans, my fellow Republican brethren. I see a failure in the bureaucracy and an unwillingness for them to step forward and make this happen faster. And you are correct, it is a much larger price tag. However, limited by the offsets available to me within this legislation and the confines of the rules, $30 million would be a good start in this process and hopefully pull that date closer to being enacted.

I would actually like to have a vote on this so that we can begin that process. I do think that they have a good plan in place to go into the information age and finally get out of this sort of 1950s mentality of paperwork being shifted around. I would like to at least take a step forward in the process. But ongoing after that, I would certainly like to work with the chairman, because I know he very much cares about efficiency of the money appropriated.

How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?

I thank the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, to address the issues raised, I do think USCIS actually has a good plan in place for moving forward to an electronic or digital age level of technology. What concerns me is this bureaucracy that deals with 7 million applications each year, tens of millions of pages of paper each year, doesn't move to technology sooner than 2013, which is their current plan. And so I would like to start that process, give them the money to begin earlier on moving to the information age.

With that, I would be happy to yield to the ranking member of the subcommittee.

I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, when we have 15,000 pending cases from the 1986 amnesty plan still stuck in the system, I think we have a flaw in the system. We need to update that and use current technology so that we can fairly bring legal immigration to this country.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, people around the Nation may be wondering why the Speaker slept as we debated Democrat overspending and earmarks until 2 in the morning. But the Speaker slept.

If last night were about pure partisan politics, we probably would have turned in early, but for House Republicans it was a matter of principle. That's why we stayed here and debated and fought the Democrat overspending plan and their secret earmarks and secret slush funds.

And moreover, the American people expect a couple of basic things from their government. They expect to be protected, they expect politicians to be wise with their tax dollars, and they expect government to stay out of their way. And they expect us to accomplish this in an open and fair way. But maybe that was asking too much for the new majority, Mr. Speaker.

So when people ask where were you last night, I will proudly say I was standing with my Republican brethren and the House Republicans fighting the Democrats overspending, all while the Speaker slept.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Minnesota.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman should address his remarks to the Chair.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate my colleague from Texas for yielding.

I want to respond to my colleague and friend from Ohio. He does a wonderful job at oratory. His facts are a

little off, Mr. Chairman, I must say. He forgot in his list of these wonderful things the Democrat Congress has done, because, let's face it, it is a nice long list of things that they have said that they would do. Actually, they haven't implemented many of the things that he claims, Mr. Chairman. The one thing on his list he forgets, though, is the largest tax increase in American history. I don't know why he doesn't brag about that.

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

In just a second. In just a moment.

Let me just say this. The largest tax increase in American history, that is really the backdrop of these spending bills.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague yielding. There's a simple fact. We had a strong earmark rule in the last Congress, and we're asking you to reinstate the earmark rule.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida. What she said was factually incorrect. The Republican Congress put in a strong earmark reform so the American people can see what we are spending here on this House floor. It's a matter of transparency and openness which the Democrats campaigned upon. What they have done in this whole process is put those earmarks back in the shadows, in the shadows of the chairman's pocket, and the chairman can divvy them up as he sees fit.

That is not the direction we should be moving in, and we are not delaying this bill. What we are doing is having a debate on the size and scope of the government and whether or not we should allow pork- barrel projects to invade our appropriations process or whether or not we should have openness and restrain the size and growth of government. That's what this debate is about, and it's a good debate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague and friend from Kentucky for the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, the disastrous effects of our Nation's dependence on foreign oil are being seen in every new tank of gas and every cent we send overseas to pay for Middle Eastern oil. Rising gas prices are a product of rising demand and not enough supply.

The time is now to revolutionize the way we produce and consume energy. That's why I am proposing a 21st Century Manhattan Project to spur the ingenuity of our American private sector, to deliver free market solutions for our Nation's energy problem.

I am introducing legislation to create a $1 billion prize, the Independence Prize, as I call it, that will go to Americans who develop revolutionary products that substantially reduce our dependence on foreign oil, eliminating our dependence on foreign oil. The Independence Prize provides incentives to American entrepreneurs to get transformational innovation to consumers, and more importantly, put Americans on a path to energy independence. Independence is the key.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

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

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

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

I thank my colleague for his comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So first of all, the process is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

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

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

I thank the Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope my colleagues concur.

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

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

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

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

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

I thank my colleague from Nebraska for yielding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, none.

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

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

Has the gentleman yielded?

Mr. Chairman, his question is impossible to answer. Under the rules of this House that the Democrats have written, they do not publicize the earmarks requested by Members.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, under House rules, only a Member can speak one time on each amendment.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

The secondary amendment is before us here now. That is the operational motion.

And so, therefore, since he has already spoken on the secondary amendment, he may not speak a second time on the secondary amendment.

I object.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 120: At the end of the bill (before the

short title), insert the following:

Sec. 544. Of the funds appropriated in this Act under the

heading ``Federal Emergency Management Agency--state and

local programs'' for law enforcement terrorism prevention

grants pursuant to section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (42

U.S.C. 3714), not more than $30,000,000 shall be available

for Operation Stonegarden.

Offered By: Mr. McHenry

Amendment No. 121: Page 18, line 25, insert before the

period at the end the following: ``: Provided further, That,

of the funds made available under this heading, $30,000,000

is for carrying out section 287(g) of the Immigration and

Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(g))''.