Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 13, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I want to respond to some of the comments that have been made on the other side. I share the concern that the gentlelady from New York said that this is an embarrassment. She is right. It is an embarrassment that we have to be doing this, but it's an embarrassment to the majority party, because there are principles involved here.
You promised things you are not fulfilling. That's why we are bringing these issues up, and we're going to continue to quote the things that are happening and remind you that that's the reason.
CNN.com today: ``Obey says that earmarks can still be scrutinized before the spending bills go into effect, but nonpartisan advocacy groups like Public Citizen says it's not enough.'' Craig Holman, legislative representative for Public Citizen: ``It violates the whole spirit of the reform itself. We really did expect that earmark requests were going to be an open book so that all of America could sit there and take a look at who's requesting what earmarks.''
We're not saying we are opposed to the underlying bill and we're not doing this for delaying tactics.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Ms. Foxx was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I also point out that last year, when we debated this bill, the majority party offered 70 amendments to the bill and took over 2 legislative days. We have not even been in this for one legislative day yet, and we're getting complaints that we are utilizing delaying tactics. Let's not say what we should not be doing.
Last night, also, Mr. Obey said that professionals will look at these earmarks. We get complaints all the time that the staff runs this place.
I'm offended by that remark. This is a job for the Members of Congress to be doing. This is not a job for the staff to be doing. I consider we are professionals at this business, and we don't need to delegate the looking at earmarks to staff members. We need to be doing that ourselves, and we need to do it in this process.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
It is clear that the gentleman from Georgia is new here because he has obviously not seen this process played out in the past, or seen his colleagues on his side take days and days and days to take care of appropriations bill and to throw problems in our way.
What he is saying is so disingenuous. This bill does not have to be approved until October 1. The budgets are out there for these agencies until October 1. This does not have to be done today; it doesn't have to be done tomorrow. There is plenty of time to do this.
But what the Democrats have allowed us to do is to expose their hypocrisy. They are giving us that opportunity. Now, we could stop all of this debate immediately, and we would be happy to do that. All they have to do is stop shrouding the earmarks in secrecy. They think that our wanting to expose their secret earmarks is trivial. My constituents in the Fifth Congressional District of North Carolina don't think that is trivial.
And my colleague here earlier who said that Republicans ask for earmarks, certainly Republicans ask for earmarks, and I think that is appropriate. I didn't ask for any earmarks in this bill. I don't know anybody who asked for earmarks in this bill, but people do. But he misses the whole point, as the Democrats do. They are now trying to turn this on us. They are in the majority. They can handle this problem easily. All they have to do is put out a list of the earmarks, and let everybody know what they are.
No, we have a chairman who wants to have those earmarks in secret until after the bills are passed and then vote on them.
Also, my colleague from New York talks about wasting time. Ladies and gentlemen, I have just been dying to talk about this, and he has given me the perfect opportunity. The majority party said we are going to have people in Washington 5 days a week so you will work. Well, I work very hard when I'm in my district. I know they love to be in Washington, D.C., but let me tell you about waste of time. Let me tell you about some of the bills that have been brought to this floor for us to vote on. It goes on and on and on. There has been one substantive bill signed by the President in 6 months of this Congress.
But let me tell you some of the wonderful, exciting, necessary bills: Recognizing National Americorps Week; supporting the goals and ideals of National Public Works Week; honoring the contributions of the Rocky Mountain Senior Games on its 30th anniversary; in observance of National Physical Education and Sports Week; supporting the goals and ideals of Financial Literacy Month; honoring the 50th anniversary of the international geophysical year; expressing the support for National Foster Parents Day; honoring the life and accomplishments of Gian Carlo Menotti; recognizing the benefits and importance of school-based music education; recognizing the 45th anniversary of John Hershel Glenn's historic achievement; supporting the goals and ideals of National Community College Month.
That's why we come to Washington 5 days a week and that our colleagues think that our wanting to shed the light of day on these egregious earmarks is trivial? Folks, I want to tell you, the people in my district do not think it is trivial, but they think some of that stuff we have been voting on, and I could spend the next 5 days reading out the titles of these bills when we talk about waste of time.
But let me tell you, even their press, their friendly press, gets it; and I think the American public gets it. They want to change the topic and make it look like we are obstructing justice. We are shedding light on the problems.
CNN, again, not a bastion of conservativeness said: When Democrats took control of Congress, they promised lawmakers would go public with their requests for funding. They have not done so.
Earmarks should be scrutinized before spending bills go into effect. They are not doing that.
Obey's move for staff scrutiny comes at the expense of greater openness and examination by the public and other lawmakers. That is from AP.
This is from Roll Call: This year despite promises to run the most open and honest House ever, Democrats began by making sure that no challenges would be in order if Obey certified that a bill was free of earmarks.
It is over and over again. Even the press that normally supports them is saying they have made a mistake, they have overreached. We don't need more secrecy in this process. We want things out in the light of day. If I ask for a earmark, I better be proud of it and to have it published, and I am. But they don't want to do that. They want to keep it secret. And then they want to let the staff vet the earmarks, not even the Members. That is not the way to operate the House of Representatives.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source