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

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source