Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 12, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, first, I would like to thank Chairman Price and Ranking Member Rogers for the hard work that they have done on this Homeland Security bill. What we are trying to do is secure our Nation with our Homeland Security bill, and this goes a long way to doing that. But I have some concerns about this bill, and I have expressed them.
We have got to secure our Nation, and it is of primary importance to this country that we secure this Nation at every level. We have been working diligently and hard to do that. We have tried to use an open process in the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and that is, we lay all our cards on the table in our appropriations bill. We have historically let all the spending on homeland security be laid out before this House so that the daylight and reality of how we are spending the American people's money is in the bill.
I am concerned, and I wish to express the concern that in the appropriations process this year there is a lot that is going to be done in the dark. In this particular bill, it is a very small item as compared to what is coming down the road at us, but there is $16 million for bridges which we won't know exactly how that is going to be spent for this House to examine it, but it will be ``air dropped'' in in the conference committee. That is an indicator of what we are looking at as we deal with Member-initiated spending with the nickname of ``earmarks'' in the future.
At present, the plan is to set aside the money but not tell us how to spend it, and, oh, by the way vote for it. But I think in the last election the American people told us that they wanted sunlight on this process. They wanted to be able to see how we spend our money, including they wanted our names put on the things that were individually requested. In fact, the Republican House passed such a rule, to put the names on every earmark.
Yet we see in a very small part in this bill, and much expanded in the bills to follow, that there is going to be no sunshine on this process. In fact, it is going to be inside closed doors in the conference committee where there is really not a whole lot this House can do about it.
With increased nonemergency spending of $81.4 billion, these are issues that American people want to know about it. They want their elected Representatives to take a look at it and be able to figure out how the money is being spent. We debated this process the last session of Congress. We made it important to us as individual Members. We talked about it and discussed it and voted on it.
Now, all of a sudden, we have a process that has gone behind closed doors in secrecy, and as we vote these things
[Page: H6272]
out, as Members of Congress we are voting a bill which has a fund set-aside which we are not told how that fund is going to be spent. We are told it could be published over the break. This is inexcusable.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the requisite number of words on this issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The amendment has just been withdrawn.
Mr. CARTER. I believe I have the right to object.
The CHAIRMAN. The time for objection has passed.
If the gentleman just wishes to strike the requisite number of words----
Mr. CARTER. Okay. I'll wait for the bill.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I have absolutely the highest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Obey. He has worked very hard on this, along with Ranking Member Lewis, on the overall appropriations process.
The conversation he had with this House a few minutes ago concerns me in that I think Mr. King, what Mr. King has proposed, it is small but it is frugal. It is trying to set a tone. As our chairman points out, we have offered, there have been offered over 100 amendments to this bill. What does that tell us? That tells us there are people who are looking at this in detail and trying to see if we are doing things wisely. We are exposing this bill to scrutiny.
I think the message that we are trying to send to the Congress and to the process is that it is good to lay out before the world honestly how we spend our money. And, in turn, it is a way to show concern for a process that has been created by the chairman which will not disclose how we are going to spend special project money as we debate these bills.
Two of the previous speakers have raised this concern. Quite frankly, the chairman mentioned we are trying to shut down the House. Well, if examining the work of the House is shutting down the House, examining it in detail, then, yes, I guess we are trying to shut it down. But I don't think that is the way you shut it down. That is the way you open it up. You let sunlight come on the process and let everybody look at it and decide: Is it worth that extra $79,000 or not? That is what this process is all about.
But in the earmark process that is being proposed in appropriations this year, there is no sunlight upon that process. This process is in the dark. In fact, we are being asked over the next couple of weeks to vote on numerous bills that have billions of dollars set out in some sort of unidentified account that tells you we are going to spend this money, we will let you know how.
I am sure my beloved wife, whom I love dearly, would love to have that deal; and I am sure there are a lot of other people who would love to have that deal. Here is the pot of money; I will let you know how I am going to spend it later, but I am going to spend it.
In this particular process, it is going to be done behind a closed door. And behind that closed door, and the Members of Congress, who by the way in this Republic were sent here to do just what we are doing here today, examine this spending in detail, we were sent here to take a look at this spending on the earmark process. But we are being excluded. And if we have an objection that we think is offensive to America, we should be able to have a process to stop that.
But when you ``air drop,'' as has been described, secretly drop into a conference committee the earmark process determined by one or more small groups of people without the 435 Members of Congress looking at it, too, I don't think that is any sunlight at all. That seems to be a dark, dark room where legislation is taking place. And it will only be exposed when you get a ``take it or leave it'' proposition back on the floor of the House. Take it or leave it. You can't amend it; you can't deal with it. Take it or leave it.
Really, we are showing what it means to put sunlight on a procedure. We are going to try to continue to put sunlight on this procedure because the American people have raised the issue to us at the polling place that we spend too much money. So let's let them see how we spend it.
I commend those who have examined this bill in detail and are willing to come in and make such delicate surgical cuts so as to say, this guy doesn't deserve an extra $79,000. You know, that is the kind of thing that is going to save this Republic. If we can just get the earmark process to be done out in the open, in the sunlight for all of us to see, it would be a better process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Well, we are right back doing what we said we were going to do because we think it's important. We are talking about cutting back the level of administrative costs that we had last year. And you know, for a whole year, almost 2 years, the now majority, then minority, told us what a lousy job the Department of Homeland Security was doing, and in some ways I agreed with them. Well, I don't give raises to people who do lousy jobs. I don't think that's the way you ought to do it. I don't think you just automatically get a raise in this world, that your department should automatically give an increase if you're not doing the job. And in some areas I think a message needs to be sent that you hold the line and do the job we paid you to do, and you will be doing what we want you to do, and then we will talk about what your needs are for the future.
But I think the present, going back to the 2007 budget numbers, is the proper thing to do. I support the gentlelady's amendment. It is about telling the American people that we are ready to tighten the belt and show fiscal responsibility. We are not willing to push spending levels so high, as this process is doing in the Democratic plan, to where, once again, if you look at their budget, and it has been talked about tonight over and over, if you look at it, it is an inevitable road to a massive tax increase, which, quite frankly, as my friend from New Mexico was saying, is not good for the United States.
So, once again, let's let the sunshine in. As the sun rises over the mountain, let it shine on this appropriation bill. And let this appropriation bill be open to all in the United States. And how do we do that? Well, one thing we've got to do is we've got to talk with the chairman; he has got to be convinced to put some light on the process of earmarks.
And I want to make something very clear, Mr. Chairman, nobody on this side of the aisle is fighting for their earmark. We are asking clearly, whatever the process may be, we want to be able to see it so we can do something about it. The American people told us, do something about earmarks. We wrote a law that would work, the Democrats agreed, and now all of a sudden the whole process is behind closed doors. And somebody, and I am not sure exactly yet who, will be behind those doors to make the decisions of how Member-initiated projects will be funded.
This debate is not about Member-initiated projects. The debate is about letting us see, while we still have a chance to do something about it, and don't airdrop this into committee where it can't be done. I don't think this is hard to figure out. I think this is an easy process, and that is a process that the chairman can work with us on and come up with a solution for.
It is important, Mr. Chairman, that we have sunshine upon the earmark process. And if we get that, I think we will have what the American people asked us for in the last election. It is very critical.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source