Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Chair. I will resist the temptation to point out how my Tigers took two out of three from your Mets recently. I, too, am Generation X and was…
Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I appreciate the opportunity to address the Chair. I will resist the temptation to point out how my Tigers took two out of three from your Mets recently.
I, too, am Generation X and was interested in some of the remarks that were put forward on the floor. First, I do not know that the people who wrote the Federalist Papers and came up with the system of limited government would be rolling in their graves at any attempt that we engage in to stop the obfuscation of earmarks within a process that is less than transparent.
I would also like to note that it is my preference to refer to the bull in the china shop as the bull in the Communist China shop. And speaking of bull, let us not forget that for 4 days this Chamber dealt with little else than a nonbinding/impotent resolution on Iraq that resulted in absolutely nothing except the people's business being delayed for that period of time.
Today, we are here about earmarks and not in general, but in particular the process by which they are inserted into appropriation bills. It seems to me that one of the fundamental problems we have in addressing this is the lack of openness and transparency in the process and that is what this endeavor is about.
It would also strike me that in discussing this process, it is odd to hear the new majority using the President of the United States' budget requests as an absolute baseline of fiscal sanity when throughout the course of the last 4 years in which I have served in this body, they have decried this President of the United States as the epitome of fiscal insanity.
So a baseline request from the President is just that. It is a request.
Now, in many ways we are then bound as an institution to give deference to both the authorizing committees and then the appropriating committees. But we do not delegate carte blanche our individual power which is vested in us by our constituencies to then oversee the work product of both the authorizing committees and the appropriating committees.
Today we are engaged in trying to exercise and reaffirm the right of not only ourselves but of Members on the other side of the aisle to be able to exercise that power that has been temporarily vested in them by their constituents to fully and fairly vet these bills and to make sure that the appropriations are what they are claimed to be, and to make sure that they are put to the best, most efficient and effective purpose that they can be on behalf of the American people.
Part of the reason this is necessary is not everyone in this Chamber takes the same approach to earmarks as other Members might. Some Members do no earmarks at all. Some Members prefer to do many, many earmarks. And some Members, I cite myself, do earmarks at the request of their local municipalities so we can serve as conduits back to our States.
I come from Michigan. It is critical to us that we receive our fair share of Federal spending because we pay more than our fair share of Federal taxes. My State, Michigan, is a donor State. Michigan is currently in a one-state recession, and it is very important that our taxpayers receive their money back. But that is my individual approach. That approach has to be vetted by 434 of my colleagues here, and only an open and transparent process will ensure that if I have made a priority request through a earmark, it is in keeping with the best interest not only of my district but within the best interest of the entire American people.
It would seem to me this is a very reasonable approach, it is a very reasonable request, and it is a request that we are pressing today, as we did yesterday, and will continue to do so because it is part of our constitutional obligation we take as Members of this body.
Were we to do otherwise, it would be a dangerous precedent to set because in my mind we are tragically on the verge of coming up with a new kind of system which will allow very little transparency and openness and thus injure the ability of not only ourselves but the American people to know how their money is being spent.
In the past there was the old joke that in the Congress you had Republicans, Democrats and appropriators. If the process that we in the minority find so offensive is allowed to proceed, you will now have four distinct entities. You will have Republicans, you will have Democrats, you will have appropriators, and you will have super- appropriators.
I don't know if the new super-appropriators get to make these decisions in the dead of night, also get to wear a cape and cowl, if they come with a sporty car so they can chase down Federal earmarks, or if they have a cave or a pole to slide down at their leisure as they go off to work to spend other people's money.
I think, however, this would be a tragic development and would oppose it.
Finally, as a member of Generation X, I would like to ask the baby boomers who devised this process to do as you Age of Aquarians often do, let the sun shine in.