This past week in the House of Representatives there were a series of a rapid-fire votes on amendments to the DHS 2008 Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2638). Fourteen of these amendments involved decreases in spending contained in the original bill or increases (via a transfer of funds) in a specific agency’s appropriations. Members of the Republican Party offered all amendments. Nine passed while five failed. Analysis of these fourteen votes will give clarity to members’ real positions on spending for national security.

It should be noted, by way of background, that DHS’s budget has increased $10.2B or 28.2 percent since 2004. The request for 2008 was $46.2B an 8% increase. (It would take 924,000 taxpayers earning $50,000 to equal this amount.) The question that taxpayers must ask is how much more is needed. It seems reasonable that over a period of time that spending increases should level off as Immigration and Customs Enforcement is fully functioning, Border Security and Fencing is completed, and Buffer Zones have been established and implemented. Increases for these three programs totaled $99M through the transfer of funds from other accounts.

Congress is intent on following an unsustainable path to greater and greater spending. The pressing concern is, are there any in Congress who understand this and are trying to reign in the reckless spenders?

There are many who say they are, like the Blue Dog Democrats whose primary mission is to "promote fiscally responsible budget reforms and accountability for taxpayers dollars", but they consistently break their pledge and vote with the tax and spend party leadership. It is crucial for voters to know where their Representative really stands and who is trying to reign in runaway spending. The true measure of a politician is not in what he says but in how he votes.

Let’s look at these votes and see what they reveal.

Amendment #251--An amendment to reduce the appropriation to the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $9.96M failed 201-221. 13 Republicans voted no, dooming this reduction in spending to defeat. They were Tom Davis, Ferguson, Frelinghuysen, Johnson (IL), King (NY), Kirk, LoBiondo, Marchant, McHugh, Saxton, Smith (NJ), Souder, and Young (AR). These members are not looking out for us!

Amendment #253 –An amendment to reduce the appropriation to the Office of the Secretary of Homeland Security by $1M and reduce appropriation for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $11M.This amendment passed 218-205. There were 25 Democrats who voted in favor of the reductions, in opposition to party leadership, that enabled it to pass. Kudos to Altmire, Bean, Boswell, Ellsworth, Eshoo, Herseth Sandlin, Hill, Holt, Israel, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Mahoney (FL), Matheson, McIntyre, Meeks (NY), Moran (VA), Patrick Murphy, Pascrell, Peterson (MN), Pomeroy, Smith (WA), Stupak, and Taylor. These members ARE looking out for us. There was, however, one Republican who voted no, Presidental candidate Tom Tancredo. Tancredo has given no official statement regarding his no vote. His constituents will surely want to inquire.

Amendment #254—An amendment to reduce appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $79,000 passed 379-45. Forty-four Democrats voted no and one Republican, McCaul (TX). There is no official statement from Rep. McCaul regarding his no vote. His constituents will surely want to inquire.

Amendment #255—An amendment to reduce appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $300.000 passed 381-41. All no votes were by Democrats. Some of the more prominent members voting no were Dingell, Hoyer, Jackson-Lee, Kucinich, Skelton, Towns, Waters and Weiner. These members are not looking out for us.

Amendment # 256—An amendment to reduce appropriations for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $1.2M passed 216-198. Twenty-eight Democrats defied party leadership and voted yes allowing this bill to pass. Thanks for looking out for us. Five Republicans who voted no were NOT looking out for us. They were Tom Davis, Gilchrest, Gillmor, Kirk, and Souder. Constituents will want them to explain their vote.

Amendment # 257—An amendment to Amendment #256 to increase the amount of reduction to $8.96M failed 108-300. All Democrats voted no along with 81 Republicans. It would appear that Democrats and some Republicans want modest reductions in spending but NOT anything significant.

Amendment # 258—An amendment to reduce the appropriation for the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management by $138,000, passed 248-168. Three Republicans voted no, Tom Davis, Sauder, and Walsh (NY). The amount may be relatively small but constituents would still want to know why they voted against reducing spending.

Amendment #259—An amendment to reduce appropriation for the Office of the Under Secretary for Management by $10M and increase appropriation for the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement by $9M passed 286-127. Four Republicans voted no, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Diaz-Balart, Fortuno and Ros-Lehtinen. Constituents will want to ask why they did NOT want to strengthen the enforcement of our existing immigration laws. 123 Democrats voted to do the same. They certainly are NOT looking out for us!

Amendments #260, #261, #263, #264 and #267 were all funded by transfers from other accounts commonly referred to as offsets. The first three passed, thereby funding security efforts such as nuclear detection, fencing, infrastructure, technology, and buffer zones. The last two failed, giving great cause for concern because they were requests for more funding for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (which processes visa applications, etc) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection Salaries and Expenses (which provides funds for hiring more personnel to enforce our borders). It becomes abundantly clear that the House does not have the will to enforce our existing immigration laws. Five Republicans do NOT want more funding to help process legal applicants faster so that the backlog can be removed. They are Boehner, Castle, Culberson, Gillmor, and Wilson (NM). These representatives need to be replaced. They do not represent the will of the people.

It is especially egregious that the House voted 96-327 to NOT increase funding for Salaries and Expenses for Customs and Border Patrol agents. Sealing our border with Mexico is without a doubt the will of the people. If representatives fail to carry out the will of the people they MUST be replaced!

The final Amendment in this series is #297, an amendment to reduce DHS funding by 5.7 percent over the next year. As noted above the requested increase for FY2008 was 8.0% so this is NOT really a reduction. It is actually an increase of 2.3%. It failed 145-277. No Democrats voted to reduce spending.

Several things become abundantly clear after analyzing these votes.

1. The Democrats cannot be counted on to right the ship and set us on a course of fiscally responsible spending. (Note: The Republicans had previously failed at this, also.)
2. There are some Republicans who favor bigger government and for all intents and purposes vote as Democrats. They are Tom Davis, Paul Gillmor, Mark Kirk, and Mark Souder.
3. All appropriation requests and, for that matter, all earmarks are for worthy projects. If money were no object they should all be funded. HOWEVER, the government does not have unlimited finances and, as a result, some projects need to be rejected. As a matter of fact, the government has no money of its own. It does not produce any revenues. It makes no profit. It can only confiscate money from citizens who have the money through the taxation process. At some point the system of tax and spend will put such an enormous burden on our economy that it will bankrupt the country. We will then be forced to lower our standard of living and return to subsistence living that has not been seen in America for over 70 years.
4. If our representatives cannot set aside partisan politics and do what is best in the long run for the country then it is time to replace them with representatives who will!
5. Constituents should be concerned about representatives who consistently miss votes. Presidential candidate, Ron Paul, missed 10 of the 14 votes. There may, in fact, be a good reason but it will make me re-assess his strength as a candidate.

If you are not sure what you can do, here is a place to start. Call, write, or e-mail your Representative regarding his votes on the above amendments. Remind him that you elected him to be your representative. He should, therefore, represent you! Let him know where you stand!