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
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Has the gentlewoman been recognized on this amendment yet?
Mrs. BLACKBURN. No, I have not, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to sit here last night and then today and listen to some of our colleagues who find it incumbent to step to the microphone and say this is not a worthy debate and to talk about frustration and talk about anger and talk about this being a debate of little substance.
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to everyone that serves in this Chamber and the people that they represent, this is indeed a very worthy debate. It is a debate that deserves our best effort. It is a debate that deserves our focus and our undivided attention.
It is also a debate that we should enter into with respect for the American taxpayers, the ones that are sending their hard-earned dollars here and their expectation that we should be, that it is incumbent upon us to be good stewards of every single penny that comes to this House.
So for those who feel that the moments we are spending on this floor are not worthy, I would commend to them to think about the taxpayer that is hard at work right now, maybe in a job they don't even like, maybe doing something they don't really love, but they are working hard to provide for their family and they are working hard to meet their obligations and pay their taxes and to make certain that they do their part to be a good American citizen.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think that the frustration, anger and ``of little substance'' that was spoken of by one of my colleagues a bit earlier this morning, is probably exercised by the American taxpayer who looks at the increases in spending that have been brought forward by this majority. They are the ones who are frustrated. I think they are the ones who are angry. And I think that they are probably the ones who look at what is taking place and they fear that money is being put into items that are not substantive.
Now, this new majority has already increased appropriations $105 billion. This is a 5-year cost of what they're wanting to appropriate. For '07, we've got $587 billion they've appropriated. They've already designated $23 billion in an '08 budget and it goes on and on and on, the increases in spending.
Certainly we know that the bill before us, this homeland security bill, would be a 13.6 percent increase. And as I speak on Mr. McHenry's amendment, I commend him for bringing forward something that would cut just a little bit, just a little bit, out of these expenditures. But the truth, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a philosophical difference in how we approach this debate from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Now, we heard last night that the decision on how appropriations should be done and how earmarks should be handled should be delegated to some of the professional staff. I heard from a couple of my constituents on this issue who really could not understand why we would want to delegate that authority, not review these earmarks ourselves, not want to cast a vote on those. They feel like that is our job, just as they feel like it is our job to oversee this budget, just as they want to know how this $36 billion is going to be spent on homeland security. They want to see a more transparent and a more open budget process. They don't want to see secret slush funds returned.
They heard about these. They didn't believe it in the 1970's. They didn't believe they really existed in the 1980's. And then we had the advent of the Internet, 24/7 news, people could log on, and they started realizing, yes, there were these secret slush funds and smoke-filled rooms and that's how money got appropriated and sequestered for specific projects, something that they really didn't like. That is one of the reasons that we saw a change in '94 and things were done differently.
I enjoyed that debate. I enjoyed that little history lesson last night. But I think as we review our situation that we find ourselves in today, what we see is a need for more transparency. We see a need to rein in this funding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on Ms. Foxx's amendment, and I thank her for being one that realizes one of the threats that we face is a growing Federal budget and out-of-control Federal spending.
And as we have talked about threats this morning as we are debating this Homeland Security budget, it is not lost on us that this is a $36.3 billion budget. It is 13.6 percent more than last year and, as our ranking member has so wisely stated, 6 percent more than was asked for and more money than needs to be in that budget. And, certainly, it does not make good fiscal sense that this would be the type of budget document, this would be the type of appropriations that would be passed for this.
As we talk about threats, one of my colleagues mentioned that we were holding hostage the budget and loved using that term ``holding hostage.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that probably the American people who watch this debate feel like they are the ones that are many times held hostage and their paychecks are held hostage by the Federal Government.
The Federal Government has first right of refusal on that paycheck. They take out what they want before the taxpayers and our constituents see that paycheck. And, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think they are tired of it.
And they are tired of the type of out-of-control spending that they are seeing from this new majority. They didn't like the spending that was there when we were there. Certainly there are many of us that think that we spent too much, and certainly many of us worked very hard for the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, that reduced $40 billion of Federal spending.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I think the American people thought that you all were going to do better than that, that you were going to cut more than we had cut. But that is not what they are seeing.
We have got hundreds of billions of dollars more in spending certainly, $105 billion more in new appropriations, 13 percent more in this single budget alone. It is out of control. Our constituents feel like their paychecks are held hostage, and, quite frankly, we think information is being held hostage.
Now, on the security issue and on this fence, sometimes those of us who are mothers talk about setting up situations that are going to be win-win situations for our children. We like to create an environment where things can succeed. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to funding the fence, what the liberal leadership has done is set up a failure, because what you do is underfund the fence. Then you come along and $700 million of this funding gets pulled into this gray bureaucratic red tape area that probably you are never going to see that fence built.
Now, we had a vote last year. We had 283 Members of this body go to a machine, put in their card, and punch the green button for the fence. That was the vote that was taken. So that leads us to say was that a politically motivated vote? Did they do that because they thought they were looking for reelection? Did they feel like that was what their constituents wanted? Because, certainly, we know one of the things we hear from many of our constituents is ``secure the border first.''
But now we have a Homeland Security bill and in this $36.3 billion with a 13.6 percent increase over last year, we can't find the appropriate amount of money to fully fund a fence. And that is something that the American people want to see done.
Mr. Chairman, the debate that is taking place here, quite frankly, I think, is a very good debate. It is the type of debate we ought to have, and we ought to do this more often so that people can see what are the philosophies of the left and what are the philosophies of the right. So then they can get an understanding for the philosophical differences of how we view how to go about our jobs, how we view going about handling the taxpayers' money. I think this is a good thing for us to come here and talk about if we want to spend more, if we want to spend 13.6 percent more, or if we want to return to the model of the Deficit Reduction Act, the 2006 budget, and reduce $40 billion worth of spending.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I rise in support of the amendment from the gentlelady of Virginia, and also in support of the 287(g) program.
I want to thank the ranking member for mentioning our program in Nashville, Tennessee, and talking a little bit about that. He gave us some information about why this program works. I would like to expand on that for just a couple of minutes, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Virginia for a couple of minutes of remarks.
The program in Nashville, the 287(g) program there, is working. We understand that it yields results. You heard about the first week's results from this program.
Now, the reason we need to put our money where our mouth is and the reason the funding needs to support the language in the bill is because this is a program that saves local governments money. And it works. And there is a waiting list to get into this program.
Now, a follow-up on the comments that the ranking member made from the June 10 issue of the Nashville Tennesseean. Fifteen deputies from the Davidson County department underwent training, and now they check the immigration status of every foreign-born person that is booked to that jail.
Also, they have 213 inmates that were held on immigration orders during the program's first 45 days. It is a sharp increase from the 151 metro jail prisoners subjected to immigration holds in the year of 2006. This is paying for itself. It is getting results. That is why this program deserves to be fully funded.
At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for his 2 minutes of remarks.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, precisely, there are 13 jurisdictions that have this program. It works. We need this Nation right. The cop on the beat needs the information to get to these criminals that are on our streets.
Let's fully fund the 287(g). We're looking at $36.3 billion. There is money to do this right and be a good steward of our taxpayers' money.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source