Author: mopress

By Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6324)

Homeland Security was an agency created after 9/11, and as admitted by many Members on the other side of the aisle, the agency itself was the biggest bureaucracy created. As you remember, it just took employees from all different agencies, including Department of Agriculture, and put it into one agency called Homeland Security. And we created an appropriations committee and essentially just funded it with what it asked, without all the first instance.

And I remember Mr. Rogers, who was the first chairman of that committee, bringing to the Appropriations Committee the bill last year and indicating this is a huge bureaucracy. It has almost 200,000 people in it, very hard to wrap your hands around it, just sort of hold your nose and vote for it. There were no earmarks in the bill, as there aren’t any earmarks here tonight, and we adopted it.

What happened with the new chairmanship with Mr. Price is that first thing he did was ask, we better look at what this is all about. Homeland security for what? Security, what are we fighting? So we invited in all these experts to sort of give us an overview of what is risk, what is fear, what should we be looking at, and it was very sensible.

What they suggested is that you’re talking about people that are going to respond to incidents, and in an incident like Katrina, an incident like a disaster, like a terrorist act, you’re going to need to prepare responders, people in the Intelligence Community, people on the ground in local communities. And in essence what they said is that homeland security is really hometown security, and you need to have your towns prepared for this, and you need to do it on a risk management basis; just don’t throw money at everything.

And Chairman Price went on CODELs seeing what disasters were like, going to Katrina, going to New Orleans and later along the border, where we put a lot of money, and what we learned in the committee, ironically, was that the only terrorist that was ever apprehended or found evidence of was not on the border that we’ve all been looking at, which is the Mexican-U.S. border, but, in fact, on the Canadian border where we were doing very little, if anything, on homeland security. The committee found that very interesting and put a lot of money and assets and said let’s start securing the northern border as well as the southern border.

The chairman took a bipartisan CODEL along the whole border from Tucson to San Diego, every inch of it, flew it, saw all the assets we have. My God, you’d think that we had the entire war in Iraq being fought on the Mexican border. We have everything from aircraft of all kinds, helicopters, we have ATVs, we have dogs, we have horses, people on horseback. We are covering that border like you can’t believe.

In San Diego, we even found a Border Patrol out on the boats in San Diego Harbor. It was everything. We saw fences, all kinds of fences, vehicle fences, human fences, and areas that it’s just unbelievable, as far as the eye can see. This border is longer than the distance between Washington and San Francisco.

What we found is that we had better do this thing wisely. Let’s listen and let’s use some smart risk management.

It all comes down to this bill tonight. What this bill is all about is, this is the best Homeland Security bill this country has ever had. We are spending all this time just on procedural delays.

It’s ironic that you are going to be hoisted on your own petard, because this process that Mr. Obey and the leadership has put in the process requires each one of you, when you ask for something that’s called an earmark, some people call it pork, it’s essentially that thing that you think is important. You have to disclose why you are asking for it.

Mr. Chairman, we had to fill out forms that were never, never ever in the history of the U.S. Congress asked for more disclosure and everything.

The committee rightfully has stated that this is not the bill to attack earmarks, because there haven’t been earmarks in this bill. So if you want to continue to delay this, rather than getting to the point of adopting an appropriations bill to allow the Department of Homeland Security to do its job, then let’s get on with it.

I think this has been a night of ridiculous waste of time on something that is very, very important on a bill that is very important, the first appropriations bill we have had here, one that must pass if, indeed, we are going to have homeland, hometown security.

By Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6325)

Mr. Chairman, I want to take you back, because I know as you are sitting there today you have an independent recollection of what it was like to come here in your first term. Many of us in this Chamber came just in January, took the oath of office, and now what we find is that every week is a new week, all new process we are learning.

So we come in, those of us who are not appropriators, we come into our conference, and we hear this is the appropriations week. Wow, sit down with our staff, staff gets us up to speed, and we hear about earmarks, heard about them a lot in the campaign, and start to get the staff briefing on what are the tools that we have in earmarks.

I heard a lot about them. If you talked to people in Illinois’ Sixth Congressional District tonight, and they are awake, and you asked them about earmarks, you would get their attention. They would focus. It was a symbol of an abuse of the process.

So when you sit down as a freshman and your staff comes in, they say, Congressman, this is what you do. You can offer amendments. You can argue with these things. You can challenge them on the floor. As iron sharpens iron, so one makes another better.

So that process, that winnowing process, is what this is all about. That’s what every Member has the right to do, except now, because now what ends up happening is our staff tells us, oh, no, but there is this new process, Congressman.

What you get to do is you get to write a letter. Oh, yes, you get to write a letter to the chairman of the committee; and the chairman of the committee is going to open up that letter, and he’s going to make a decision about th

e merits of you, an independent elected Member of Congress. That is who you get to talk to.

You don’t get to argue on the House floor. You don’t get to light up 435 people. You don’t get to talk to millions of people. You get to write one letter. That’s where you get to go.

You know, if you think about that, that’s absurd. There are all kinds of great things in this bill. No doubt about it. My prior colleague from the State of Illinois articulated many good things in this bill. It’s my hope that we can come together and drive towards those things.

But to act as if the earmark process is insignificant is really patronizing. It’s patting people on the head and saying, off with you, be lively, you get to write your letter to the chairman, and the chairman will make a declaration on whether it’s a good idea or a bad idea.

Well, one of our colleagues on the Internet recently said this. He said, to his constituents, he said, I will remain no one’s Congressman but yours. Doesn’t that sound great? I mean, that’s great stuff, that’s rich. You know, that is rich in the Chamber of Commerce meetings; that’s rich in front of the Rotary groups; that’s rich in front of the coffee groups. And you go door to door, I’m going to be your Congressman.

But you know what? You end up ceding that responsibility. You end up ceding that opportunity to one person, and that’s only if you are lucky enough that he reads your mail.

Well, I say “no” to that.

By Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6314)

Mr. Chairman, I have a question I think the American people would like answered. It is a question that has not been asked tonight. We know ]House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-WI)], and we know he has taken a position that he is not going to publish or disclose these earmarks [for the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008]. He has expressed his opinion.

What we don’t know, Mr. Chairman, is, the Speaker is not sitting in the Chair and we don’t know where the Speaker stands on this whole procedure. We do know that the majority leader said that all earmarks would be published, there would be complete transparency. We know that he said in committee they would be debated. We know that the Speaker on a number of occasions, I think we have all seen those quotes, we have heard a few tonight, the Speaker make it clear during the campaign and after the campaign that all earmarks would be disclosed prior to any vote on the House floor.

So, Mr. Chairman, I believe it is incumbent on the Speaker to come before this body and address the body and tell the body whether or not the procedure that we are witnessing, whether it is chairman of the Appropriations Committee has taken this on himself, whether he is doing it on his own accord, whether he has polled the Democrat Members to see where they stand.

But more important, we want to know where the Speaker stands. We want to know whether the Speaker consulted with the chairman, whether she has blessed this. We know what she said in USA Today. We know what she said in the Christian Science Monitor and what she said in a news conference just last month. We know that in a press conference on March 13, 2007, she specifically said that all earmarks would be made public before a vote on the House floor. We know that, so it is a mystery to us why we are going through this process.

Now, the chairman of the full committee said back in 1999 there was a bill, one bill, that the Republican majority did not publish the earmarks before the vote on the floor. We know that is part of his reason for doing this. But we also know that the Speaker of the House told the American people that this would never happen as long as she was Speaker. And she, as a late as a month ago, said there would be no votes on the House floor on an appropriations bill where earmarks were not published.

In fact, the gentleman from Illinois, the majority whip, says, if possible, we are going to put them on the Internet weeks before we vote on them on the House floor. They are not on the Internet. We don’t know how many earmarks there will be, what earmarks are under consideration, the total amount of those earmarks.

But more importantly, we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman, we know that the Speaker of this House, the Speaker of this House said that this wouldn’t happen. She said it many times on many occasions, both during the campaign when she asked the American people to turn the Republicans out and put the Democrats in.

And we know that from exit polls that many people went to the polls on election day with that promise in mind; and they voted for Democrats who now serve in this body under the assurance that this wouldn’t happen, and it is happening.

Now, we know that the chairman of the full committee, we know his position. He said we just have to do. He talks about what we have done and what they have done. The important thing is the American people.

In fact, earlier tonight on one of the news network, it was not Fox, they asked: Where does Speaker Pelosi stand on this? The American people are asking, where does the leadership of the majority stand on this issue?

That is my question, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that before we proceed in this body, that the Speaker of this House come before this body and not tell, I don’t care if she tells Republicans, I don’t care if she further explains to Democrats, I want her to tell the American people why, only 3 weeks after promising that earmarks would be fully disclosed both in committee and on the floor of this House, that we backed away from this.

By Rep. David Obey (D-WI)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6315)

We had crocodile tears expressed here about the number of earmarks and what will happen to earmarks. Let me cite the record.

In 1994, the last year when Democrats controlled the House, earmarks were primarily concentrated in four appropriation bills. They were project-oriented bills like military construction, energy and water, Interior and general government. This Homeland Security bill had not even come to pass yet because it was before 9/11.

In the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill the last year that the Democrats controlled, we had zero earmarks. The last year under Republican control that we had earmarks in the Labor-H bill, we had over 3,000.

In the Transportation bill, the authorizing bill, from 1956 through 1995, we had 20 separate highway bills pass this House containing a total of 739 earmarks. Do you know how many we had, Mr. Chairman, in 2005 under Republican control in just one bill? Five thousand.

Then we all remember the infamous 3-hour vote on Medicare part D.

I would ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle to keep this civil. If the other side wants to turn it into a circus, fine, but I think we ought to behave.

Let me say, we remember Medicare part D when the Republican leadership kept the vote open for 3 hours. Meanwhile, the newspaper stories told of how they promised earmarks in the transportation bill in return for votes on Medicare part D.

Last year, we had three major scandals. We had the Cunningham affair, then we had the bridge-to-nowhere, which caused a lot of heartburn around the country; and now, just recently, we have another story suggesting that the committee chairman then, the gentleman from Alaska, inserted a project for Florida.

Under Republican rules, as they existed then, nobody knew about any of that until about 2 years after the fact. Under the proposal that we are proposing for earmarks, you would know about that 30 days before they went into effect. That is a huge difference.

Let me also point out, in 1994, the four biggest appropriation bills that’s Commerce-Justice, Labor, Transportation and VA-HUD. The last year the Democrats controlled the House, in 1994, the four major appropriations bills, Commerce-Justice, Labor-Health, Transportation and VA, we had a total of 764 earmarks. Those same bills, just one fiscal year ago, had 8,600 earmarks.

With all due respect, I don’t want to hear any crocodile tears on the other side of the aisle with respect to the issue of earmarks. They have exploded under their operation of this House, not under ours.

In terms of what’s going on tonight, I should make quite clear that the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) told me in January that the minority party would give us no procedural cooperation because they didn’t like the way we had handled a continuing resolution. They wanted us to have a straight CR rather than thinking our way through priorities. Now they have simply moved on to another excuse.

So I would simply say, whether you vote for the underlying amendment or for the amendment to the amendment, these are not real amendments. It is clear to me that they have only one purpose, to bring this House to a halt, and they are looking for any excuse they can find.

They got a mighty weak one, but we are going to stay here until the job is done. This is the people’s business. We are not going to be diverted by their trying to play Trivial Pursuit on this bill.

---

By Rep. Don Young (R-AL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6315)

I have voted every time to continue our process against my leadership. I was not going to say anything, but when you referr
ed
to the bridge-to-nowhere as a scandal, when you voted for it four times, most of the people in this room voted for it four times. It was always transparent. I was always proud of my earmarks. I believe in earmarks, always have, as long as they are exposed.

But don’t you ever call that a scandal.

---

By Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6316)

You can accept those facts tonight and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact tomorrow and change the procedure. The majority can accept that fact next week and change the procedure, but the procedure will change.

I have the greatest respect for the chairman of the Appropriations Committee. I admire his energy, his tenacity and his passion. I understand that he believes he has proposed a fair system. I understand that he has just recited for us a history lesson about how earmarks were handled in the past.

But I would suggest to you that time moves on. The American people now understand earmarks in a way they did not understand. The American people understand earmarks, and they understand this process, and they cannot be fooled. You cannot take the process for disclosing earmarks and make those earmarks public after the bill has been debated.

There is not a constituent of yours that believes that makes sense. The American people understand that some people in this body believe earmarks are very good, and some people in this body believe earmarks can be very bad and very corrupt.

They are in unanimity on one point, and that is, they want to know what’s in those earmarks. That means those earmarks have to be debated on this floor.

Now, I understand that the gentleman who is the chairman of the Appropriations Committee believes that he can just vet them, and he can post them in August, but that obviates the most important part of this process. We do not engage in this process by adding language to bills, critical language to bill language that the American people don’t get to see or know about after debate has occurred.

We didn’t tell the American people that we would make the process open this year, that we would disclose every earmark and allow every earmark to be debated, because we don’t run the place.

You run the place. You’re in the majority.

H.R.2638

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2008 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)

BORDER SECURITY FENCING, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TECHNOLOGY

For expenses for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology, $1,000,000,000 (reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by $5,000,000) (increased by $89,125,000), to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the amount provided under this heading, $700,000,000 shall not be obligated until the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives receive and approve a plan for expenditure, prepared by the Secretary of Homeland Security and submitted within 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for a program to establish a security barrier along the borders of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers, where practicable, and other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology, that–

(1) defines activities, milestones, and costs for implementing the program, including identification of the maximum investment related to the Secure Border Initiative network (SBInet) or successor contract, estimation of lifecycle costs, and description of the methodology used to obtain these cost figures;

(2) demonstrates how activities will further the objectives of the Secure Border Initiative (SBI), as defined in the SBI multi-year strategic plan, and how the plan allocates funding to the highest priority border security needs;

(3) identifies funding and staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity;

(4) describes how the plan addresses security needs at the Northern Border and the ports of entry, including infrastructure, technology, design and operations requirements;

(5) reports on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States;

(6) includes an analysis by the Secretary, for each segment of fencing or tactical infrastructure, of the selected approach compared to other, alternative means of achieving operational control; such analysis should include cost, level of operational control, possible unintended effects on communities, and other factors critical to the decision-making process;

(7) includes a certification by the Chief Procurement Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and that the SBI Program Office has adequate staff and resources to effectively manage the SBI program, SBInet contract, and any related contracts, including the exercise of technical oversight, and a certification by the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Homeland Security that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the projects funded under this heading;

(8) complies with all applicable acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition management practices of the Federal Government;

(9) complies with the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget, including Circular A-11, part 7;

(10) is reviewed and approved by the Department of Homeland Security Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Office of Management and Budget; and

(11) is reviewed by the Government Accountability Office:

Provided further, That the Secretary shall report to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on program progress to date, and specific objectives to be achieved through the award of current and remaining task orders planned for the balance of available appropriations: (1) at least 30 days prior to the award of any task order requiring the obligation in excess of $100,000,000; and (2) prior to the award of a task order that would cause cumulative obligations to exceed 50 percent of the total amount appropriated: Provided further, That of the funds provided under this heading, not more than $2,000,000 shall be used to reimburse the Defense Acquisition University for the costs of conducting a review of the SBInet contract and determining how and whether the Department is employing the best procurement practices: Provided further, That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated for fencing or tactical infrastructure on lands administered by the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or the Bureau of Land Management unless the Secretary of Homeland Security coordinates such decision with that agency, and makes every effort to minimize impacts on wildlife and natural resources: Provided further, That none of the funds under this heading may be obligated for a fencing or tactical infrastructure project or activity unless the Secretary formally consults with affected State and local communities to solicit their advice and support of such project or activity: Provided further, That no funds under this heading may be obligated for any project or activity for which the Secretary has exercised waiver authority pursuant to section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) until 15 days have elapsed from the date of the publication of the decision in the Federal Register.

By Rep. David Price (D-NC)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6284)

Mr. Chairman, I rise to indicate that we will accept this [King amendment to cut $79,000 from the Department of Homeland Security Chief of Staff], but I want to explain my reasoning, if I might, and explain it very carefully.

For 2 hours now we have sat in this Chamber and have heard Republican Members railing against the Bush administration. Member after Member after Member has risen in this Chamber to condemn Bush administration bureaucrats in unsparing terms, and not one voice on that side of the aisle has been raised in opposition, not one.

So, we are asking ourselves, how long are we going to defend a very carefully crafted bill that deals with the administration’s legitimate needs to administer its Department?