---

Mr. Gene Green of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing because a lot of us sat here last night until 2 in the morning and watched the Republican minority file motion after motion for us to rise so we wouldn't take up a Homeland Security bill that has no earmarks.

What they did was slow us down on trying to have a bill passed by October 1, which they have had trouble when they were 12 years in the majority. That is why we had to live under continuing resolutions, and continue to live under one because of their governance last year.

The Homeland Security bill has 300 new Border Patrol agents. It would be nice on October 1 if this bill was signed into law so we would have those Border Patrol agents on the border, in our airports and in our ports.

They are delaying the planning for the first responders, whether in the city of Houston where I come from, or the State of Texas where my three colleagues who spoke earlier on how bad earmarks were, or the bill provides protection from explosive systems for our airports, including Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

This is delaying $400 million for port security, including the Port of Houston, the number one foreign-tonnage port. We are doing some great things in the Port of Houston. It is because we put the community together, the business community and all government agencies, Republican and Democrats. I wish we could see that in Washington. But we didn't see that last night. We saw delay after delay in not taking up this bill. So we are putting it off so they can make a point of how bad earmarks are.

But the House Republicans don't want to talk about those issues. They want to talk about how they want to bring the light of day into earmarks. Well, for 12 years they didn't want the light of day in earmarks. They were the king. They were the emperor of earmarks. I have watched for many years what happened over those 12 years with the earmarks and the ones that were shut out in the minority.

I think what they are concerned about is that we may do to them what they did to the Democrats for 12 years, but that is not our intent. All we want is to be able to see them, the public.

I have requested earmarks, and I am proud to say I have received them for our district. I don't mind publicizing them. In fact, I will do it in any manner required, instead of airdropping them in like they previously did in the appropriations bills.

I think that conversion we saw, maybe it started with the November election, but we are seeing it now, that conversion is almost as amazing as Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus, from Saul being a persecutor of Christians to becoming Paul, the Lord works in mysterious ways; but I don't think it is so mysterious. I think what we are seeing is after 12 years of being dictators in this House, now they are afraid the same rules are going to be used against them.

For 3 years, I have requested $250,000 in an earmark for a prenatal machine to treat mothers, poor mothers, to be able to get a new piece of equipment so we can do prenatal planning. $250,000. Health and Human Services has stripped out Democratic earmarks for a number of years. I don't intend to do that. I am not an appropriator, but I hope our Appropriations Committee doesn't do that. I am not ashamed to say that I asked for that earmark again this year for that prenatal machine.

Or for $250,000 for a diabetes program in Harris County to help what our local community is doing. I have asked for $250,000 for immunizations. The reason we have earmarks is that I don't want to appropriate all that money and send to Health and Human Services, and say, by the way, I sure would like you to help diabetes and immunizations in Harris County in Houston, Texas. Or maybe help pay for part of a machine for prenatal care.

Mr. Chairman, do I still control the time on the floor of the House?

The Acting chairman: The gentleman from Texas has the time.

Mr. Gene Green of Texas: It is my understanding that Members cannot rise while other Members have the floor of the House.

The Acting chairman: A Member may seek to be yielded to. The gentleman from Texas may continue.

Mr. Gene Green of Texas: Mr. Chairman, we all have to obey the rules, whether Republican or Democrat; and that is what we are trying to say. We want to pass the appropriations bills before October 1. In the majority for 12 years, they couldn't do it. They put in earmarks all over the appropriations process, and yet stripped out Democrats. I don't want us to do that, but I do want us to have some legislative ability to say we have projects in our district that are important. If I am willing to say, yes, I want them and I will publicize them, then why shouldn't we be able to have an elected official make that decision instead of the bureaucracy that may still be under the President. But the now Republican minority put earmarks in even when they were in the majority, so that is what this debate is about.

They don't want us to pass these bills but we need to do it for the American people, particularly Homeland Security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman, and I think he had some good points to make, but I do just want to point out that under the Republicans, the Democrat minority was allowed to determine which of their projects got funded. If Democrat projects were stripped out, it wasn't done by the Republicans; it was done by the Democrats on the leadership in the Appropriations Committee. I think this is important to understand. We didn't interfere with what Democrat priorities were, as I understand it. You got a certain percentage and were able to determine your own priorities.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, I think he may be blaming us for something that we didn't do.

Now, I am not here to lead a crusade against earmarks. The Constitution clearly specifies that the legislative branch is in control of spending for the government. We are entitled to set our priorities, and we would not be doing our jobs as Representatives if we did not indeed set those priorities.

I do want to note with some of the things that have been said, in the final year of Republican control of the United States Congress, we cut nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in 19 years. The hardest thing we ever have done in Congress, you or we have done, is to cut spending. It is very, very difficult.

Having said that, last year we actually accomplished it, and nobody knew it so I am going to say it here again today: the first time in 19 years, through the leadership of Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations Committee, we cut nondefense discretionary spending, the first time in 19 years.

We did not cut mandatory spending, but we worked hard to slow the growth curve, and we did that. Mandatory spending, by the way, is where two-thirds of all spending actually occurs. And for the first time in 9 years, we slowed the growth of mandatory spending. Those are two huge accomplishments. I hope that the Democrat majority in the time they have will be able to show a similar accomplishment. I am not encouraged so far by what I see. I think with all of their rhetoric about openness and transparency and curbing earmarks, it bodes very ill, despite that rhetoric, in trying to tar and feather the Republicans with these slanderous statements that they have, indeed, overturned their own process and they are going to airdrop in the earmarks in the conference committee.

Yes, it has been asserted there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill. That is right, but there will be, and they will be in this bill in the conference report where all we can do is vote "yes" or "no," no chance to amend or affect the process. That goes completely against what the majority party asserted would be their policy. And we have to keep calling attention to this to have the world understand what is going on here. This is fundamental to the consideration of all the other appropriations bills. We have to get this process established.

They ran their campaigns last November on the idea that the earmarks are going to be open and accountable, and the first thing they did was to go way back in time and do something where they are completely shielded from public view until the last minute when they get dropped in. That is wrong. We will not accept that, and we will not go easily into that good night until and unless you reform that policy. It is completely unacceptable to campaign about openness and transparency for earmarks, and then to go in exactly the opposite direction, have no openness and no transparency and no accountability.

That is very, very wrong, and I hope that people will clearly see that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I have to Mr. McHenry, if he would care to offer any additional insights.

Mr. McHenry: 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.

Ms. Giffords: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to really focus on the substance of this bill, and I rise today in strong support of this Homeland Security bill.

I represent southern Arizona. My district, the 8th Congressional District, shares 120 miles with the country of Mexico. We are facing a security and immigration crisis in my district and across the Nation. The flood of illegal immigrants and drug trafficking continues to place an undue burden on not just our health care system but our schools, our first responders and on our local law enforcement.

Currently, the Tucson sector is the most porous section along the U.S.-Mexico border. On average, every day the Border Patrol apprehends about 2,000 illegal immigrants and approximately 2,500 pounds of drugs. While most illegal immigrants are coming here for economic opportunities and don't want to do harm to anyone, probably about 10 percent are involved in criminal activities.

Nationally, the Border Patrol arrests 1 million illegal immigrants annually and seizes over 1 million pounds of marijuana and 15 to 20 tons of cocaine.

Smugglers' methods, routes and modes of transportation are potential vulnerabilities that can be exploited by terrorists attempting to do the American people harm.

Border security must be strengthened, and all of the options for accomplishing this must be on the table. Success requires a multifaceted approach. We need to build fences, we need to deploy sensors, we need to utilize the latest technologies, such as UAVs, and take advantage of advanced technology in terms of detection.

I'm pleased that this legislation makes border security a priority and provides the funding that we badly need along the U.S.-Mexico border. The improved border security that this bill will fund is a crucial component in passing comprehensive immigration reform that is tough, practical and effective. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation later that includes components of border security, along with comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, the bill that we are discussing today provides $8.8 billion for the Customs and Border Protection agency, which is $50 million above the President's request, and $647 million, nearly 8 percent, above fiscal year 2007. It provides funding for 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents, and this will bring the total number of Border Patrol agents up to 17,819 by the end of fiscal year 2008.

This bill also funds the SBI, the Secure Border Initiative. This is going to be rolling out in Sasabe in southern Arizona, and it funds this initiative at the President's requested level of $1 billion. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to justify how it plans to use these funds to achieve operational control of our borders.

So I urge my colleagues to pass and I urge the President to sign this very important legislation. Our border communities urgently need this funding to stem violence and lawlessness and prevent terrorism that could possibly impact the United States along the southern border.

I urge the Members on both sides of the aisle to move forward on this legislation.

Mr. Campbell of California: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

This debate that began yesterday and continues today is really about two things. One thing we've heard a lot about here recently in the last few speeches that people have given is whether or not the majority party wants to have earmark spending that is secret and that is not subject to individual vote. We believe that such spending ought not to be secret and ought to be subject to an individual vote. That's one thing.

But there is another thing, and that is that this bill simply spends too much. This bill has an increase in it, and I know the gentleman from North Carolina and I had a discussion on this yesterday. Let's just talk about the nonemergency spending.

This bill increases spending from year to year by 13.6 percent. Again, that is a lot. It is a lot more than inflation, which has been running under 3 percent. It is a lot more than most people see as an increase in their salaries. Why, in fact, if someone out there listening, Mr. Chairman, makes $15 an hour, if they were to get a similar increase this year, they would make over $17 an hour next year. I mean, most people out there making $15 an hour would love an increase to $17 an hour, but they're probably not going to get a $2 increase, but yet this bill proposes to expand the spending by 13.6 percent.

Now, people on the other side of the aisle, Democrats that continually criticize our amendments and the things we're talking about by saying that we are cutting spending, the two amendments before us right now and the previous amendments we voted on last night and most of the amendments, if not all, that we're going to see later, are not cutting anything. They are slowing the growth. If you get $1 a month and somebody gives you $2 a month, that's an increase; it's not a cut. But they keep saying cut on the other side of the aisle so much that I believe perhaps a little visual assistance is required.

So, Mr. Chairman, I just want to make this very, very clear. One equals one. If you are getting $1 and you still get $1, that is not a cut. That's the same amount of money that you had before. Two is actually more than one. So that if you were getting $1 and now you get $2, that also is not a cut, even if you wanted $3. Because what Members on the Democratic side of the aisle continue to say is, oh, we're getting one, we want three, you're only going to give us two and so, therefore, it's a cut. No, it is not. One equals one, two is more than one, regardless of what you want.

Mr. Rogers will propose an amendment later that has already been described by the other side as a massive cut, except it will leave a 7 percent increase, I believe, roughly, in spending in this bill. A 7 percent increase from year to year is not a cut.

The amendment that is before us right now, Mr. McHenry's amendment, proposes to spend less money than the bill before us on the Secretary's bureaucratic operation, but it actually allows the Secretary's bureaucrats to spend more than they spent last year. That, again, is not a cut.

So, Mr. Chairman, let us make it clear here that Republicans are not proposing to cut this bill. We are not proposing to cut spending in the Department of Homeland Security. We are proposing to increase it at a rate which is sustainable because if you continue to increase things at 13.6 percent a year, then that requires that everyone out there who's making that $15 an hour get a raise to $17 and give it all to the government in order to keep paying for this sort of increase. American taxpayers cannot afford that kind of increase after increase after increase.

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

Mr. Chairman, I agree we should be debating substantively whether or not we have reached perfection in the amount of resources we have put to homeland security, and if Members on the other side think that no additional funding for homeland security is necessary, no additional border guards, no additional funding for immigration, that's their right.

If they have so little confidence in Secretary Chertoff and the other appointees of the Bush administration to decide what they need to administer their responsibilities, that's their right. In the Senate, they call it "a vote of no confidence" formally. Here the vote of no confidence in Secretary Chertoff will be the constantly repeated phrase, "those bureaucrats," and apparently Members do not have any confidence in the appointees of the Bush administration. That's their right.

What they don't have a right to do, it seems to me, is to totally forget history. Now, we are told, and I guess I should express my admiration for so many Republicans who are fighting for the rights of others. In our society, people fight for their own rights, but we genuinely honor people who fight for the rights of others, people who are not themselves victims, but fight to protect others who have been victimized.

Well, a number of the Republicans are in that category. They are fighting very hard for the right to vote against earmarks. What's interesting is that many of the Republicans who over these past couple of days have been fighting for the right to vote against earmarks always vote for earmarks, and I don't just mean in overall bills.

The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) took the floor and acknowledged that he had offered 39 amendments in the last Congress to cut out earmarks and he lost 39 times. The overwhelming majority of Republicans voted 39 times against the gentleman from Arizona. So we have Republicans yesterday, and I will have the Record and we'll have the rollcall, we will have people who said you must give me the right to vote against these earmarks who then never voted against a single earmark. And that is admirable.

It is admirable when you, yourself, have no intention of voting against earmarks when, in fact, you are 39 for 39 in voting to keep earmarks in the bill. And by the way, one might think the gentleman from Arizona is irrational. I do not. I voted with him on a number of occasions, not the majority, but I voted with him on some.

The gentleman from Arizona is a careful Member. He selected the most, to him, outrageous earmarks, and we have Republicans who voted for all 39 outrageous earmarks, according to the gentleman from Arizona. The great majority of the Republican Party voted overwhelmingly to reject the earmarks that, of course, their appropriations colleagues had put in the bill.

So, Mr. Chairman, is that not admirable, Members who got up here and said, How dare you not let us vote against earmarks, when they themselves had no intention of doing that? This is the vegetarians rushing forward to defend the slaughter of beef cattle. This is atheists insisting that people be given a religious day of worship.

This is a very, very impressive display of concern for the others. These are people who themselves apparently intend to vote for every earmark that comes down the pike. They never met an earmark they didn't like, because if the gentleman from Arizona has done all of his careful research, and he's presented 39 earmarks that he thinks are particularly egregious and Members have voted against him on every one and have voted to keep all 39 earmarks, they've never met an earmark they didn't like.

So their insistence on delaying this bill and repeating arguments. I must say I was here all night last night. I walked in and I don't object to dilatory tactics. I object to excruciatingly boring dilatory tactics. I must say, Mr. Chairman, the Members on the other side are the least imaginative filibusterers I've ever seen. They just repeat themselves and repeat themselves, and stuff that was uninteresting and flat in the first place does not improve with age.

But whatever their tactics, understand they are employing them on behalf of the right of the others to vote against earmarks because it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Republicans have no intention of voting against earmarks, at least not based on the record. They not only voted for bills with earmarks, the gentlewoman from North Carolina acknowledged that earmarks had increased from 1,500 to 15,000 under Republicans, but then, of the 15,000 earmarks, when one of our most diligent Members, the gentleman from Arizona, proposes to kill 39 of the earmarks, the overwhelming majority of Republicans voted against him 39 times.

So, for that dedication to preserving a right that they themselves have no interest in exercising, I give them credit, for very little else, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jordan of Ohio: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, the folks on our side, we certainly care about the security of the United States, we care about the security of the homeland, but we also care about how the tax dollars of American families are spent.

The previous speaker talked about the right to vote on earmarks and how some of those people are going to vote for these earmarks. But it's not just about the right to vote on earmarks. It's about the right of American families and American citizens to see what those earmarks are that their elected officials may vote for or against.

I guess I look at this in this light, to paraphrase the line from the movie, "show me the earmarks." Show me the earmarks. Because when you see the earmarks, then you are going to see where the money is going. That's what the American people want to know. We have talked about the term transparency a lot in this debate, because the reason it's so important is the lack of transparency inevitably leads to more spending.

That's just the way it works. We have got to know what's going on. If we don't, more spending is going to occur. If you don't take my word for it, look at the numbers. This bill increases spending 13.6 percent. It's spending that always drives. Spending is the problem. We hear the term, the old cliche with politicians, tax-and-spend politicians. It's really the opposite. It's really the opposite. It's spend-and-tax politicians. Spending drives the equation.

If you think about this, the spending contained in this bill, in the budget we passed that was passed a few weeks back, that spending inevitably will lead to higher taxes. Every single good tax cut that has been put in place over the last 6 years, under the Democrat spending plan, is going to go up, money that would be in the pockets of families to spend on their kids, their goals, their dreams, things that their kids care about, things that their family cares about, their business to reinvest it there. All those things that they would like to spend their money on, those taxes will go up, take money from the hardworking family of this country and give it to government. That's what we are talking about.

That's why we are talking about some of these issues. We want you to show me the earmarks, show us what's there so we can see where ultimately the spending will go and the American people, more importantly, can ultimately see that.

I am reminded of a debate that I had back in my days of the State House. There was a tax increase that was moving through our assembly, I was opposed to it, and I remember a reporter coming up to me and saying Jordan, you are so opposed to this tax increase, you think it's so bad for families and taxpayers across the State of Ohio, he said. But where's the outcry? Where are those families storming the State House to talk about this huge tax increase that you are fighting against?

I said, you know, they're too busy working to pay those taxes to storm the State House. That's the truth. We have got to remember the families out there who have been working hard, making their businesses succeed, making their families reach their goals and dreams they've set. We have got to remember those as we go through this debate.

I would be happy to yield to my colleague from North Carolina who is, I know, the sponsor of the second amendment.

Mr. McHenry: 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. Jordan of Ohio: I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for his work.

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

Mr. Chairman, in deference to the comments of the last speaker, I think the American people know what's going on here. They know that almost 6 years after 9/11 and over 5 of those years during the time that they controlled this Congress, they couldn't do what we have been able to do with this funding for Homeland Security. They couldn't do it, or they wouldn't do it.

But either way, Homeland Security funding is vitally important.

Why? It's important because it sends a strong, clear message to all the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, including Customs and Border Protection officers, that serve us, serve us well, valiantly around the clock, that we think their work is important.

Last summer, in August, we had a series of hearings. I went to, I think, five or six of those hearings where a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were present as well.

They talked about doing everything that was possible to secure our country's borders. They talked about supporting the Customs and Border Protection officers. They talked about providing them the tools and the weapons and the technology, all the kinds of things that sounded really good.

Yesterday and today, they're singing a different tune. They're talking about stalling. Every minute that we talk about silly things, we aren't talking about serious problems, that demand serious efforts, serious problems that demand serious solutions.

At the very minimum, serious problems that demand serious debate. We don't need Members citing "Animal Farm," which, that's all well and good to make a point, but the American people know that instead of an animal farm, this is a body of a ship of fools here.

We don't need cute and silly things like one is one and two is more than one, because it insults the very people that they profess to support, the employees of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS. By the way, every minute that we take doing these kinds of silly things here, professing to want to debate seriously, we also take time away from the largest increase ever for veterans funding, which is the next bill that's waiting to be taken up here on the floor of the House.

Again, 5 years after 9/11, they couldn't do it, they wouldn't do it. Now they've decided that they're not going to let us follow through on the hollow promises that they had made for 5½ years after 9/11.

These are serious issues that we have an obligation seriously to solve, an obligation that we owe, not just the American people, but the employees of the Department of Homeland Security.

I spent 26½ years serving this Nation proudly on the border. I know the integrity. I know the hard work. I know the dedication that the employees of the Department of Homeland Security give each and every day.

They are, or they should be, respected and are not being respected by the kind of silly debate that has been going on here from Members of the other side of the aisle. I think they deserve better, I think our country deserves better, I think we all deserve better when we reflect that this is the people's House. We deserve better than that kind of silly debate.

I believe that it's important that we return to a process, the regular order of continuing to debate this funding for a very important agency 6 years after 9/11.

Let's get to the business that we were sent here to do. People put their faith and trust in us. Let's not betray that faith and trust. Let's do our job.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make, essentially, two points. First, my friends in the minority lack credibility on the issue they have raised last night and today; and, second, this bill is far too important to be stalled, delayed, put off by blatantly partisan tactics.

On the first point, why does the minority party lack credibility on this issue? Well, one of the two parties during the last 6 years took the largest surpluses, I think we have had in history, and managed to turn those surpluses into deficits, a multitrillion dollar turnaround that was accomplished in a record short time. That party was the party of my friends in the GOP. That's the same party today that is arguing for fiscal responsibility.

One of the two parties presided over the greatest growth and expansion and acceleration and abuse of the earmarking process in history, brought that process to a point where it accounted for more earmarks and more dollars than ever before. That party was also the GOP.

One of the parties in this House presided over a period that resulted in more indictments of Members, more investigations of Members, more appearance of impropriety than any time since ABSCAM or Watergate. That party was the Republican Party.

That same party that abused the earmark process, that had no earmark transparency is now objecting to what? It is now objecting to an earmark process that is better, that is more transparent than it has ever been. That party is objecting to the work of the majority which eliminated all earmarks in last year's bill.

So here you have a party that has demonstrated over the last 5 or 6 years utter fiscal irresponsibility, a lack of willingness to reform the earmark process, now complaining that, okay, the Democrats are reforming the process, they are making it more transparent, but we are complaining because we think they should take it much farther.

Well, I think the last 6 years demonstrated a lack of credibility, a serious lack of credibility among my friends in the minority party.

Why is this bill so important? Why is this bill essential to move forward, and why are these partisan stalling tactics so questionable?

This is the bill that provides the resources to defend our country. I am just going to focus on one because there are numerable areas of this bill that are so vital. But if you go back 5 or 6 years ago when President Bush and Senator Kerry had their debate, they were asked what is the number one security threat facing this country. Their answer surprisingly was the same, nuclear terrorism, the idea that al Qaeda could get nuclear material and bring it into this country.

Well, there are only so many things that prevent al Qaeda from doing that. It's not their lack of motivation or will. Osama bin Laden has already talked about wanting an American Hiroshima. The obstacles are getting the materiel, fashioning the bomb, and getting it into the country. Getting the materiel, unfortunately, is not very difficult, given the plentiful amounts of highly enriched uranium in the former Soviet Union.

Building a bomb is not that difficult because the technology is now decades old. Getting into the country, unfortunately, is not very difficult. That's something this bill seeks to address by deploying radiation-detector portal technologies; and more than just deploying them, as essential as that is, doing the analysis to find out which of the portal technologies will be most effective in keeping a nuclear or radiological weapon out of the country. These are the kinds of investments that are being delayed, stalled, run down by a party that has run our Nation's finances into the ground in the last 6 years, that is complaining about an earmark process better than anything they proposed.

We need to move this bill forward. My friends in the minority don't have the credibility on this issue. They may have had it at some point, but they lost it in the last 6 years. This is not the way to retrieve it.

We need to move this bill forward. Now is the time to do it. We need to implement these reforms to improve our safeguards against nuclear material getting into this country. We need to ensure that our cargo is protected.

We need to ensure that any number of investments that are made in interoperable communications equipment and our firefighters and our police officers are made, and they are made now.

I urge this bill move forward. I urge the delay come to an end.

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I want to talk about what my friend from California just mentioned. And I want to just simply say that I think that the gentleman from California is truly a gentleman, and I enjoy the time we've spent together. But there are just a few things I think need to be corrected.

Number one, the gentleman mentioned that over the last 6 years, the Republicans, when they were in charge, squandered the opportunity, lost the credibility. Well, guess what? It's only taken 6 months for this majority, maybe 6 years for the former majority; 6 months, and this majority has turned their back on earmark reforms. Six months into the new majority, and this majority has turned this thing upside down.

What do I mean when I say that, Mr. Chairman?

Let me just quote our current Speaker, on December 14, 2006, "We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks, and we will give the American people the leadership they deserve."

What happened?

Well, a number of things happened. Under the Republican majority, earmarks got out of control. Under the Republican majority, waste occurred. Let me be the first one to say that.

So what happened?

In the last session, Republicans changed the rules. We said, if you're going to have an earmark, a pork-barrel project, Number one, we've got to see it. It's got to be in the bill. A Member has to have their name attached to it, so they have to defend it.

But most importantly, the American people need to see this, and it needs to be in the bill as it comes to the House floor, as it goes to the Senate Chamber, so that the American people have time to look at it, so that transparency and sunlight can bring accountability to the process, and so that we, as the people's Representatives, each and every one of us, representing 670,459 people, can have judgment, can vote on it. That's transparency. That's accountability. It happened late in our majority, but it happened.

What did the Democrats do as they took over the majority?

To their credit, Mr. Chairman, they extended, enhanced and improved upon these rules. So I would, at this moment, like to give some bipartisan credit to the fact that we negotiated these earmark reforms in the last session, and Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats, to their credit, carried them over and made them better.

Where are we 6 months later? Where are we 6 months into this new majority? We went three steps forward, and now we went six steps backwards.

Mr. Chairman, what are we doing?

No transparency, no earmarks in these bills, no opportunity for the American people, the public, to see what's in this legislation. All we have in these bills are big slush funds, a $5.9 billion slush fund in the bill that's coming up next, a $20 billion earmark slush fund in the bill coming after that.

What does that mean?

They're putting billions and billions of dollars of fiscal space of a general earmark in these bills, and they're simply saying, this money will be earmarked afterwards, when I, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee decide to put this money in to go toward pet projects, pet constituencies, at my choosing, at my scrutinizing, after Congress has the ability to consider these things on their own merits.

Is that transparency? Is that accountability? Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.

They have gone backwards, back on their word, back from bringing transparency and accountability to Congress.

So let me just say for the record, both parties have messed this up. Both majorities have seen the light, and this majority is going backwards on this. That is what this is all about.

We recognize we've got to have more transparency and accountability in the way we spend taxpayer dollars. That's one of the problems we have. The other problem is this idea that we can just spend our way into prosperity, this idea that we can just spend more and more and more money, and all things wrong in America will be fixed. If only we take more money out of people's paychecks, bring them up here to Washington and spend their money, every problem can be solved.

This is the problem we have at a basic philosophical level. Here is where we are just 6 months into this new majority.

The President gave us a budget. His budget increased spending across all levels of government. His budget increased discretionary spending. Well, what happened since that budget came? Six billion new dollars in February in the omnibus appropriation. Then, just last month, $17 billion in new spending of unrelated, nonrequested spending in an emergency appropriation bill to go to funding the troops in Iraq, $17 billion that has nothing to do with Iraq. And now, $21 billion in more spending. $43 billion out the window, out the door in new spending in just 6 months.

How do you balance the budget, Mr. Chairman? You balance it by controlling spending.

The Acting chairman: The time of the gentleman has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: We believe you balance the budget by controlling spending, not raising taxes. And at the end of the day, this is what the differences are.

The majority brought to the floor a bill and passed the largest tax increase in American history. They modified it to possibly reduce that to the second largest tax increase in American history. So what can they do? Raise more spending and raise taxes to balance the budget.

We want to balance the budget at a much lower level of taxing and spending. We want more transparency in the process. We want to control Federal spending, and we want the American people to see exactly how their money is being spent so that their Representative can call these issues into question, not put the power in one man's hands here in Congress, which is the current proposal before us.

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

Mr. Chairman, it's been an interesting process these last, give or take, 24 hours. As a freshman legislator who spent 24 years in the Tennessee State senate, in those 24 years in the senate I saw the parties work together. Democrats and Republicans worked together for the betterment of our State. We had Republican governors. We had Democratic governors. We had Republican and Democratic legislators.

What America wants is for the parties to work together. On most of the bills we've had, they were brought by Democrats, and it's been called a Democratic Congress, but many of the bills that were passed by this Congress were done in a bipartisan way.

There were Republicans who voted for stem cell, not a majority, I believe, but Republicans voted for the stem cell research. There were some Republicans who even voted for the minimum wage. There were Republicans who thought prescription drug prices should come down. There were Republicans who even cared about college loans being brought down. There were bipartisan efforts to bring about progress.

There was much less bipartisanship in the effort to save lives in Iraq and end that wasteful and unfortunate policy we have in the Middle East, but--however, there was bipartisanship.

During this debate, one of the most serious requests debates we could have, the Homeland Security bill to protect us from natural disasters, to protect us from foreign enemies and terrorists, we have gotten into the most divisive partisan debate that I've seen in this Congress in the 5 months I've been here.

Much of the debate has not been about the Homeland Security bill, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman. It's been about attempts to attack our Speaker, the first woman ever elected Speaker of this House of Representatives, a great day in this country when the glass ceiling was broken, when a great lady was put in this position, the highest position a woman has ever been in in the legislative body in the history of the United States. To try to tear down the Speaker, trying to tear down the party and trying to bring up other issues, rather than talking about Homeland Security.

Yesterday, Congressman Arcuri spoke, a former prosecutor. He said, you know, in opening statements if a person talks about the facts, they've got a case. And if they talk about things other than the facts, they don't. And the opposition party has not talked about the facts. They've brought up everything but the facts of the Homeland Security bill. They really haven't shown where there are problems with this bill.

The previous speaker, Mr. Chairman, talked about, used all the buzz words, the buzz words of "slush fund," "pet projects," "pork" and others.

The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, and he knows it as well as everybody else knows it, he's not against those things. He just wants his slush fund, his pet projects and his pork. And when people throw those terms out, because that's not what they are, they are Congress citing specific needs to be placed in the law to that represent their districts. But then what he does is disparage government.

I have spent my life in government, my entire life, and I've found it a great calling, and I think we should all try to make people think more and better about government and have young people see this as a high calling, Mr. Chairman. There are young people in our audience. They should see this as a place where they want to serve and see government as working, and I think some of them do.

But to use these terms in a disparaging way when what the party's trying to do is to say, we want our share, we want our earmarks, not pork, but our earmarks, is wrong. And it's wrong when you take the oath of office to uphold the Constitution. You should be upholding government and supporting government.

And it's unfortunate we've seen this. This has been a low point in the Congress since I've been here.

I am proud to be a part of this Congress. There are many Members on the other side of the aisle that I'm proud to serve with as well. There are some very, very fine people, and I'm sure the gentlemen who have spoken today are all fine people.

But we need to rise above some of this partisanship, try to pass this Homeland Security bill, protect our country, and inspire people to serve in government and realize that it's a process, and the process involves the Senate, and it involves the executive, it involves both sides of the aisle. And to try to tear down one side tears down government in general. We're all part of the process, and I wish we'd work together and pass this bill.

We were up till 2 o'clock this morning because of seven moves to rise and have the committee adjourn. All seven failed. They knew they were all going to fail. And it was a burden on the staff, it was a burden on the Congress, and probably a burden on people that wanted to watch something else on C-SPAN last night.

But with that, Mr. Chairman, I just encourage our colleagues to support this bill, to protect America and to have a debate that is germane to the issues concerning homeland security.

Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I intend to yield a couple of minutes to my colleague here.

But before I do, my colleague who just spoke said that we ought to be working together, and I really agree with that. The problem is, to my knowledge, the people on our side really weren't consulted about these appropriation bills in any real detail, and we didn't know that they were going to put pork-barrel projects in the bill after the fact, maybe in conference committee when we didn't have any idea what was going on there and we didn't have any control over those bills because they weren't, those pork-barrel projects weren't debated here on the floor.

So let me just say that we really should work together, and I hope you'll convey that to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, so in the future we won't be taking this much time on the floor.

I will be happy to yield to my colleague.

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding.

I want to say to the person who just spoke, who referenced me, that my motivation here is just to come and get more pork for myself. I know the gentleman's new here, but he doesn't know me, if that's what he said.

He also mentioned that you want to make this system more democratic. We should be here fighting for good government and for democracy and fairness. Is giving one man in this body this power like Caesar, to decide whether or not earmarks go in and out of bills, democratic? Is that small D democratic?

Is giving all the power to one chairman on how all 32,000 earmark requests in his power, is that democratic? Or should we have the ability, as Democrats and Republicans, in a small D democracy, the ability to vote on these things?

Shouldn't the American people have the choice and the ability to see how their money is being spent? Or should we, in the name of good government, give the chairman of the Appropriations Committee sole discretion, sole decision-making power, on how tens of billions of dollars are spent on tens of thousands of projects?

That's democracy? That's good government? That's fairness? I think not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the idea that we should simply relegate our power, our voting cards, our ability to speak on behalf of our constituents, to one chairman of one committee to spend tens of billions of our taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on tens of thousands of projects, if we think that that is good government, that is fairness, that is what democracies do, that is not my opinion. That is not my value. That is not what I think democracy is all about.

I believe we are here to fight for fairness, transparency, accountability. And what we are here to do is to make sure that our taxpayers dollars are spent wisely, that they are spent in a transparent way, that there is accountability in this system.

Why on earth does each and every one of us want to delegate our lawmaking power and authority to one person to decide how our taxpayer dollars are spent is beyond me. But for those of you who say that our motivation is simply to get a bigger slice of the pie, to get more pork-barrel spending, that's just not the case. And I think that's insulting.

Mr. Cohen: Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Burton of Indiana: I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Cohen: I apologize to you for that. I don't know you personally, and I was reflecting on the politicians in general, all of our government representatives, Democrats and Republicans. So as far as any direct thing, I shouldn't have said that specifically, and I think you have got a wonderful reputation and I appreciate the fact that your germaneness has returned to you in this debate.

Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin: I appreciate that and I want to be fair and civil here.

But this is a big issue, Mr. Chairman. It is not about delaying some bill. It is about bringing accountability and transparency back to the process in how we spend taxpayer dollars, and it is about not going back on your word, and that is what this majority is doing.

Mr. Burton of Indiana: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I agree with him.

The fact of the matter is that there is billions of dollars in pork that is stuck in this bill or will be stuck in this bill and nobody in this place knows what it is going to be. And many of the liberal newspapers that support your side of the aisle, the Democrat side of the aisle, are taking issue with this practice. So even your own supporters, the New York Times and Washington Post, are giving you Hades for this.

So I would just like to say my colleagues, you ought to reevaluate what you are doing today because I think it is hurting you. You are sticking a knife in your own foot by doing this.

Now, the thing I would like to say before my time runs out is that the Democrats, since they have taken charge, have increased in authorization bills by $105 billion in new spending. They are hiding pork, as I said, from the American people.

They want to let the tax cuts expire, which means that everybody in this country will have a tax increase. In Indiana it will amount to about $2,200 per person. That is because you are letting the tax cuts expire.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Rahall): The gentleman's time has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mr. Burton of Indiana was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mr. Burton of Indiana: Mr. Chairman, if the tax cuts expire, that in effect is a tax increase. And that tax increase will amount to $392 billion on the American people, the largest tax increase in American history.

This second-degree amendment here only cuts $9 million in spending. Just $9 million. You guys have already authorized $105 billion in new spending. Why in the world would you object to a $9 million spending cut? It doesn't make sense.

My colleague from Tennessee just said that we ought to work together. I really agree with that, and I hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the appropriations chairman will take that to heart and in the future not do the things that he did in this bill so we won't have to stay here all night and all day debating the same paragraph in one bill because you won't work with the Republican minority. You always complained about us and now you are doing worse.

The Acting chairman: The Chair would remind the gentleman from Indiana to address his remarks to the Chair.

Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, in order to work in this House, there are many good friends that we engage with, and I just listened to a good friend of mine on the other side of the aisle. But I think we are missing the straight and narrow road as our colleagues continue to be repetitive and a broken record.

Let me indicate that almost like the terminology "border security" and "war against terror," there is no disagreement between the parties in terms of transparency, I would hope, in this new Congress. My good friends on the other side of the aisle know that the stumbles that they made in the last Congresses motivated the American public to change hands as it relates to the majority. It is certainly foolish for them to think that this majority would muddle it up by not furthering the challenges and the instructions given by the people, which was transparency. And I know that they know that no earmark will move to finality without the American public's having the opportunity to scrutinize and to assess those earmarks of each Member. Earmarks that must serve the American public not special interests.

But now we are in a state which calls to question the commitment of the minority to this whole issue of homeland security. I know that all of us can find a number of different ways to utilize these dollars. What we found from many Members on this side of the aisle is that we have attempted to plus-up, for example, the urban area grants, which help the high-tier, particularly sensitive, and troubled and terror- prone cities around America, that is, moving dollars to improve the security of vulnerable areas.

The simple reduction of funds does not speak to the singular question and the responsibility of the Homeland Security authorizing committee, which I have the honor of serving on as the subcommittee Chair with my chairman, the Honorable Bennie Thompson.

We know every day, as the chairman of the subcommittee on Homeland Security for appropriations, David Price, does, and I know his ranking member, that every day questions of homeland security appear before the American public. I have a personal remembrance, Mr. Chairman, of singing on the steps of this body "America the Beautiful" on that forlorn day, a day that no American could ever have imagined in their life, those who were not of the World War II generation to have remembered Pearl Harbor, but no one could have fathomed the strike that came to us on September 11, 2001. It was then that we changed our complete mindset that we had no time, no leeway, no latitude, if you will, to play around the edges of homeland security. We are doing that and we have done that last night. We did that all into the wee hours, playing around homeland security.

And while we fiddle away the time, the first responder and port security grant program is languishing, dollars that are needed by those on the front lines. State grants regarding law enforcement, urban area grants that Houston, as one of the tier-one cities, certainly would be losing and many in the State of Texas. Albeit the incident at JFK is still being explored, even the thought that individuals would have the knowledge to explode a pipeline that would then literally obliterate an airport and the surrounding areas says that we are fiddling while Rome is burning.

And so I want to work with my colleagues. I know that the chairman of this subcommittee does. The chairman of our full Committee on Homeland Security, the authorizing committee, wants to as well. There are issues that we want to confront, and, certainly, I want the most secure airports one can find, not only the area where the traveling public is but the area where employees are, the area where workers are, the back part of the airport. I want pipelines to be safe.

And as it relates to the issue dealing with preparedness, we were in a subcommittee hearing today where the question has come up whether the disabled are secure, whether the vulnerable communities are secure.

So, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say we are fiddling while Rome is burning. We need to move forward because the question will be for the American public when a tragedy happens, as I close, where were you and what did you do? They will just film what happened last night and what is happening today, and we will not be able to answer the question with dignity.

The leadership in this House believes in homeland security. We need to move this bill forward.

Mr. McCaul of Texas: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I too am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. I was also a Federal prosecutor in the Public Integrity Section in Washington, and I also serve on the Ethics Committee. I would respectfully submit that we are not muddling up the process but rather trying to restore ethics and integrity to the process and to this institution.

In my view, this is Congress at its worst. Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have created a secret slush fund with billions in secret earmarks hidden from public scrutiny. This comes on the heels of many broken promises that we heard, promises such as from Speaker Pelosi: "We will bring transparency and openness to the budget process and to the use of earmarks."

The majority leader, Steny Hoyer, said: "We are going to adopt rules that make the system of legislation transparent so that we don't legislate in the dark of the night."

Yet that is exactly what is occurring in this body. CNN, not exactly a conservative think tank, actually said that the Democrats promised reform and it is not happening: "The 'anti-earmark reforms' are just for show. Mere window dressing." This process signals a retreat in the secret dealings and a guarantee of fiscal and ethical abuse. Earmarks should always be open to public vetting, full debate, and floor challenge, as we attempted to do in the last Congress.

Now, Mr. Obey and the Democrats are stuck between the pork and those campaign promises that they made. And so those promises are given away. The majority wants this Congress to operate behind closed doors in dark corridors where the precept of Justice Brandeis that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" is hardly known. The powerful impact of public debate and a free press are critical features of an American democracy and they are missing, Mr. Chairman. They are missing here today in this Congress.

Secrecy creates a breeding ground for corruption. Openness is an important part of ensuring that government officials are acting in the best interest of the public and that the citizens are not being manipulated by special interest groups.

Here we have one man, one man and an unelected staff, determining the power of the purse for the United States Congress, acting on behalf of 435 Members elected by the United States. Yet we have one man to make all the decisions about the spending for the United States Government. This is not, I submit, a democracy. This is a monarchy.

And to quote James Cooper: "A monarchy is the most expensive of all forms of government, the regal state requiring a costly parade, and he who depends on his own power to rule must strengthen that power by bribing the active and enterprising whom he cannot intimidate.

"A nation is truly corrupt, when, after having, by degrees lost its character and liberty, it slides from democracy into aristocracy for monarchy; this is the death of the political body … "

Someone said: "The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy, but the best weapon of democracy should be the weapon of openness." That is what we are trying to achieve here today.

I will close with a quote from Lord Byron, and I think he sums up this debate better than any quote I have heard when he said: "The Cardinal is at his wit's end; it is true that he had not far to go."

Mr. Welch of Vermont: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

The question of earmarks really has two questions to it. But, first, why are we here having a debate about earmarks? We are because in the 12 years before the last election, the use of earmarks, something that has been around since the beginning of the Republic, exploded and it went from around $5 billion in the budget to around $13 billion in the budget. And it really raises two questions, aside from the political opportunism that may present itself in this debate.

The first question about earmarks is whether it is appropriate for individuals who have the most power in this Congress to take advantage of their situation to get appropriations that go to their districts. Generally, the projects that are funded are projects that are supported and worthwhile. But, in fact, in the budgetary process, it is the people who are in the right committees or have the most power that have the opportunity to get the greatest benefit.

By the way, that is a fairness issue just within this body, because if there is going to be allocation of resources, they should be extended for the benefit of the entire country, people in each and every one of the 435 congressional districts, people in each of the 50 States and our territories.

The second issue is a budgetary reform issue. If you have appropriation by earmarks, if highway projects are funded on the basis of who is on the committee or who is in leadership or who has the ear of the Chair, then it means that decisions are being made on personal relationships as opposed to public need.

I come from a State legislature, Mr. Chairman, where we had to wrestle with this question of earmarks. And every legislator had an immense amount of pressure on them to deliver for their district; in fact, the needs of the district were compelling and reasonable. We had to struggle with an approach that would take the limited funds that were available in our treasury and allocate them for highway projects on the basis of where the greatest need was in the State, not on the basis of who had the most clout.

So, Mr. Chairman, this debate that has resulted in eight motions to rise, spending over 10 hours on what essentially looks like a minor and very political amendment is really not about earmarks, because there has been a complete erasing of history in the role that the other side has played in getting us to the point where we are on earmarks.

Also, this debate on earmarks is taking place in the Homeland Security bill, which is a bill that traditionally has not had earmarks. We could be having a debate about the MILC price support program and arguing about earmarks, but there are no earmarks that have been part of the Homeland Security bill in this Congress or, to its credit, in prior Congresses.

So, why is it that we are arguing about, admittedly an important issue, the question of earmarks and what impact it has on questions of fairness and what impact it has on questions of fiscal responsibility in the Homeland Security bill, that has independent integrity and importance to the people of this country, and where the history has been that there are no earmarks?

It would allow a reasonable observer to conclude that essentially this is about politics. In fact, it is my view and, I think, the view of most people that we really should not be injecting politics into the question of homeland security.

Mr. Chairman, you come from the City of New York. You, better than anyone else, know the urgency of making certain that we have our borders protected, that we are taking aggressive and effective measures to combat terrorism, to detect terrorists coming into our country, to have adequate funds and resources for our local fire departments and our local police stations. So, Mr. Chairman, the loser here is one person, it is the American people. And who wins and who loses in this political debate, whether it's the other side or our side, we will let the commentators decide.

We are making no progress on moving ahead on an earmark reform approach, largely because the vehicle that the other side has chosen to use is holding hostage a Homeland Security bill that doesn't have earmarks in it, won't have earmarks in it, in the past has not had earmarks in it.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Weiner): The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) to the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

Mr. McHenry: Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The Acting chairman: Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from North Carolina will be postponed.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Fallin

Ms. Fallin: Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Acting chairman: The Clerk will designate the amendment.

The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 31 offered by Ms. Fallin:

In title I, under the heading "Office of the Secretary and Executive Management", after the first dollar amount insert "(reduced by $138,000)".

Ms. Fallin: Mr. Chairman, this amendment would reduce the executive salary in the Office of Secretary and Executive Management account to the FY 2007 level, representing a $138,000 reduction from the $4.588 million to $4.45 million. The current bill's funding level represents a 3 percent increase over 2007 FY budget enacted.

There has been at least $105.5 billion in new Federal spending over 5 years authorized by the House Democrat leadership this year. The current Federal debt is $8.8 trillion, roughly $29,000 for every U.S. citizen, and growing by over $1 billion a day. Entitlement spending, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is out of control, and within a generation will either force significant cutbacks in services and benefits, or we are going to have to have massive tax increases.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office has been warning Congress that the growth in direct spending, i.e., spending that is on autopilot, and the outside annual spending process are occurring at an unsustainable rate due to well-known demographic trends and other factors. Discretionary spending has also grown exponentially and must be brought under control.

This amendment will be the first step of many necessary steps enforcing fiscal discipline and sanity upon the Federal Government and out-of-control Federal deficit spending. We must restore fiscal discipline and find both commonsense and innovative ways to do more with less. The Federal budget must not grow faster than American families have the ability to pay for it.

Mr. Chairman, I have to say that in my State, my citizens are very concerned about spending in Washington. I have heard a lot of talk this year about the elections and what occurred during the elections, and that voters gave us a mandate for change here in Congress, that they didn't want business as usual. People have told me that Congress spends too much, and we have to remember that the money that we spend here is not our money; it's the taxpayers' money.

And the taxpayers' pocketbooks are stretched these days. The price of gasoline has been skyrocketing, the price of health care, the price of prescription drugs. Families are just squeezed these days. And I believe it is time that we have this discussion about controlling our spending.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have a problem with slowing down this process. I think the American people want us to slow down the spending process. They want us to look at balancing our budget. They want us to prioritize here in Congress what's important, what's a spending priority. They want us to reduce the deficit.

They want to know where the money is going. They appreciate us fine- tuning our appropriation bill. And it seems reasonable to me that we have this discussion. That is why I support this amendment.

There is a 13 percent increase in spending in this appropriation bill, and that's huge. When you have $1 billion here and $1 billion there, that all adds up, and we still have many other appropriation bills to consider. And frankly, no one in my district has called me to say, you know what? The government doesn't spend enough. I want you to spend more. They want us to look for government waste. They want us to control spending.

And while we are increasing spending in this Congress, we have yet to even look at other issues that we need to discuss, the rising costs of entitlements, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

Mr. Chairman, last night I heard the majority leader talk about securing America and the funding of homeland security and how important this piece of legislation is. I appreciate his comments, and I agree with that; it is important that we secure America. I don't believe that anyone on my side of the aisle objects to funding homeland security. The objections that we have been talking about over the last 24 hours are about spending. It is about the process of determining how the earmarks are processed and projects are processed.

I want to remind this House that the President and a Republican Congress led the effort to fund homeland security and to protect our Nation. We support homeland security. But I would also like to suggest that securing America also means the financial security of America, the financial security of our Nation. And financial security comes through transparency, openness and open discussion on this House floor of spending and spending priorities, and allowing Members to participate and to vote on those priorities in the light of day.

This process of voting on a level of funding for homeland security, then having a conference report and then having one person in Congress and their staff decide on the add-ons, the earmarks we're spending, to me just doesn't pass the openness test and the transparency test.

The Acting chairman: The time of the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Ms. Fallin was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)

Ms. Fallin: When I was a kid, we used to have a game we played called "King of the Hill." And that would be when one person would get on this hill and we would fight off others who would come and try to take control.

This process reminds me of the game "King of the Hill", where one person is trying to play that. I just don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that that is the right thing to do.

This is our opportunity in Congress to show that we mean business in controlling our spending, we mean business in reducing our deficit, we mean business in transparency and openness of earmarks. And we can't lose this opportunity, we can't take a step back.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to request that our appropriations chairman, who is a very capable and able man, delay consideration of this bill until we have proper transparency in the earmark process. It is a choice that the majority can make now, starting with this first appropriation bill. The majority is in control. And also, the appropriations chairman could come to the floor to this debate and assure this body and the Members that we will be able to see the individual earmarks and vote on them on this floor.

This process will not allow us to do that the way it is now. And what better way to start off the appropriations process than to start with this bill, with transparency on the earmarks, transparency of funding?

Let's fix it now, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Price of North Carolina: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer a few comments on the proposed amendment, and perhaps a reality check, since the Member offering the amendment has neglected some important facts that would put this in perspective.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that, once again, goes after the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security. Virtually every amendment we have dealt with in this long debate has chosen that target.

We just finished 10 hours of debate on an attempt to cut in half the Secretary's legal advice office. Now, this amendment would cut funding from the requested level for the Office of the Executive Secretary.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle have spoken all day about the President's requests. Well, what the introducer of this amendment didn't tell us was that the bill, actually cuts $539,000 from the President's request for this item. So we are well under the President's request, and she wants to cut it further.

For department operations overall, we have cut $73 million from the President's request, and our recommended amount is also less than was provided for 2007. So, it is not as though we are funding the departmental offices lavishly. Quite the contrary, we have scrutinized the requests carefully. We have cut the requests considerably. But we have tried to give the Department the funds that it needs to maintain its own operations.

Now, we have debated an amendment for 10 hours having to do with the general counsel's office. Last night, we were treated to eight motions to rise, eight motions to go home without continuing or completing work on this bill. I think any fair observer would say this is an attempt to obstruct and to delay. These are desultory motions.

So, now we have another amendment in that same vein. This comes on top of days of our Republican friends railing against bureaucrats. Not one voice on the minority side said a thing in defense of the Bush Administration's legitimate needs for the Department, needs which we have assessed and have actually cut back the funding for, but needs which, nonetheless, one would expect Republican Members to have some interest in, some sensitivity to. Not one voice was raised in defense.

All I can say is that we have scrubbed these administrative items very conscientiously. We have reduced them overall and in particular. So we are confident in our recommendations. But we do have to ask, why? Why should we, on this side of the aisle, stand up for the administration, stand up for the Bush administration's own Department, when Republicans themselves are unwilling to do so?

Now, we are well aware that not every Republican feels this way. There are Republicans and Democrats who have worked in a bipartisan way on Homeland Security on this bill and over many years. But the group of Republicans who are dominating this debate seem to have no regard for that, no interest in it. So it falls to us to defend their own administration. And we are not inclined to make a very strong recommendation on this amendment.

If the Republican Members of this House want to take money away from this account that we have already reduced considerably, then they can be our guest.

Mrs. Musgrave: Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard comments in this Chamber today that there are attempts on this side of the aisle to obstruct. I'll tell you what the attempt is that we are making over here. It is to shed light on a topic that is now of interest to Americans. We had a Member come into the Chamber last evening, and he was talking about an earmark that he had requested, the "Bridge to Nowhere."

There aren't a lot of people that understood our jargon. They didn't understand our acronyms. It seems like every occupation has its own language. But when the American people started reading about the "Bridge to Nowhere," when it was on the cover of Parade magazine, when you were in the doctor's office waiting and you picked up the Reader's Digest trying to kill a little time, golly, here was an article in the Reader's Digest about the "Bridge to Nowhere."

So suddenly the term "earmark" has come to be understood by the American public. They started reading a little more, and they started finding out about earmarks and how people in Congress with seniority, with a great deal of power because of their seniority, had the ability to direct spending.

It is like when I talk to a high school or a junior high or middle school class. I always tell them, Government has no money of its own. The only money that government has is the money that is extracted from its citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I try to impress this upon young people and try to get them prepared for the first day after they have worked on a job. They get their paycheck and then they take a look at it, and they see how much government is taking out of their paycheck. I want them to start thinking right away about how government spends its money.

I think a lot of Americans, whether Democrat, Republican, if you looked at the political spectrum, whether they were conservative or moderate or liberal, they got a little upset to think about how some individuals had that much power to take tax dollars from people all over the United States and spend them on a project that they deemed important.

I will never forget the first time I was in a press conference, Mr. Chairman, with a number of other Members when we were looking at an omnibus bill, and the visual, just having all those pages right there on a chair was startling. There were all those things in there called "earmarks," and some were just downright silly. I mean, the American public would groan when they would think that Members would take money from citizens around the country and then spend them that way.

So as we worked through this reform process, as we talked about it, we had heroes in our midst that would get up time after time and try to go after some of these egregious earmarks and get beaten back. But you can't always determine who is going to win the war when you look at individual battles.

Although those individual battles were lost, we are going to win the war on this earmark thing because the American people know right from wrong. They know there should not be an abuse of power where someone on their unelected staff, and I have to tell you, I admire the staffers on Capitol Hill, most of them are young, because we have long days and we have hard work and it takes someone with a sharp mind and dedication to work, but they are not accountable to anybody's constituent.

When I go home to my district, I can read letters to the editor about me. People can call me personally on the phone. People can come to my office. Even though each of us represents over 600,000 people, we are approachable, and we have to be accountable. But staff is not accountable when you have power vested in one individual.

In my family we have a little saying. We say, Does somebody think they are God? And because we are God-fearing Christians, we do not believe that we are talking about capital G-O-D. What we are talking about is G-A-W-D. Who does an individual think they are when they try to exercise this kind of power?

The American public has an innate sense of right and wrong. The public's business should not be done in private, with one all-knowing individual surrounded by staff, getting in letters or comments whether this earmark is good or this earmark is bad. Maybe eventually we will have a sign that says "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" just to conserve time. That is not right. The American people know it, and we all know it.

There has been a problem with earmarks for a long time. Today is the day that we need our friends on the other side of the aisle to admit what we know what they know, and what they know we know, and reform this process.

The Acting chairman: The time of the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) has expired.

(By unanimous consent, Mrs. Musgrave was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)

Mrs. Musgrave: Mr. Chairman, today is the day that we know the American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent. If we're going to have earmarks, let's have the whole Congress, 435 of us, duly elected by our constituents, give it an up-or-down vote and have individuals who want an earmark have the courage to stand up and convince them, again, whether Republican, Democrats, conservative, moderate, liberal, wherever you put them on the political spectrum, the American people's business should be conducted in public, and the American people know that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I never thought I would say that I really miss the grand old days of the liberal tax-and-spend party, because the great liberals in our Nation's recent history were never ashamed about being honest with the American people that they wanted to raise taxes and they wanted to increase spending. In fact, they campaigned on increasing taxes and they campaigned on increasing spending.

One of the problems we have with the hypocrisy in what is going on in the last 6 months is that we are dramatically increasing taxes, $392 billion, secretly and surreptitiously, through the budget bill that repeals the most pro-growth tax cuts since Ronald Reagan was President. And now we have a process by which American taxpayers' money will be spent in secret, behind closed doors and in the dark. I really admire the grand old liberal days, when raising taxes and increasing spending was something that was done just right out in the open, where everybody could see it and debate it.

I have heard in the last 10 hours of debate that Republicans have been accused of being repetitious. It is better to be repetitive than disingenuous or hypocritical, in my view.

Winston Churchill once famously said that there is nothing that one government learns so readily from another as how to spend other people's money. I would tell you that there is a critical process that is being undermined here that is important to a functioning Congress and that will embarrass this institution if we don't stop it right now.

That is why this debate is so important. It is not about $1 million or $1 billion here or there. It is about how we go forward in spending the people's money in a transparent, honest and open fashion.

We have had our Democratic colleagues point out, I think fairly, that Republicans maybe aren't in the best glass house to throw stones when it comes to the issue of spending money or earmarks. I will tell you that it is very important that we acknowledge Republican failures.

Not all of us were happy with some of the things that happened in my last 6 years. For example, I voted against numerous GOP-led appropriation bills. I voted for virtually all of Congressman Jeff Flake's amendments. I was on occasion punished by having my own priorities stripped out of bills.

I voted for cuts in every GOP appropriations bill in my first 6 years. I criticized our Republican President for overspending and for not exercising his veto to discipline Congress. I criticized my own leadership. I supported every reform effort I can think of in the methods of opening up earmark processes to transparency and honesty. I even went on national TV and said that the Republican-led Congress was spending money like drunken sailors.

I have to tell you, a Navy captain in California admonished me. He said Congress was not spending money like drunken sailors; that drunken sailors spend their own money, and, when they run out, they quit spending. And I have to give it to him.

So I want to tell you that not all of us are coming here and ridiculing things that we have not ridiculed in the past. I applauded the Democratic reforms that were promised in terms of transparency and earmarks. As soon as we were told back in January that the reform- minded Democrats were going to open up the process and make it transparent, I said publicly that that would be one good thing about a Congress that I otherwise disagreed with its priorities.

But here I am 6 months later ruing the day that I ever said something nice about intentions, because the intentions never materialized. In fact, we have gone dramatically backwards. We are now going to have 434 of us give our proxy to the appropriations chairmen, all the cardinals and Chairman Obey, and we are going to let them decide how to spend the people's money.

We did away with proxy voting decades ago in Congress, and now we are going to have spending by proxy. That is wrong. It is fundamentally an affront to the American people, and it undermines the entire legislative process.

I can tell you that I was Speaker of the Florida legislature, and when there was trouble because of poor spending, it was almost always due to lack of honesty, openness, and transparency. And the Democratic leadership will rue the day, sooner than later, that it put a cloud of secrecy around spending the taxpayers' dollars. They will regret going back on their word.