most hazard prone areas in the country. there should be no question this test underwent rigorous scrutiny and is aligned with meeting the needs of d.h.s. i urge colleagues to defeat this amendment. i'm happy to yield to the author of this provision, our colleague barbara lee of california. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mr. price: if you'll bear with us, i will yield. mr. rogers: i want to join the gentleman in se, we have scrubbed the congressionally directed spending in this bill unlike anything before. they are clean. and they are needed in the areas where they have been congressionally directed. so i join the gentleman in a posing this amendment. mr. price: i thank the gentleman and i'm happen to to yield to ms. lee. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized.

ms. lee: let me thank both gentleman for their support and understanding the necessity for this congressionally directed spending of federal funding, better known as an earmark to some. let me just say that i do rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona and in support of the request for funding that was made by the city of emeryville in my district for funding through fema's predisaster mitigation program. let me just start by sag saying that i respect -- by saying that i respect the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. we have worked together in the past on many issues related to lifting the embargo on cuba and normalizing relations with that country. and on many, many issues. but i believe that he is wrong about the funding i requested in the homeland security appropriations for the city of emeryville's community emergency safety facilities project. the city of emeryville is in my district, it has a dense population of nearly 10,000 residents and a 1.2 square mile

region. although much smaller in size than the neighboring city of san francisco, this small city has become a leader in interagency cooperation and for the new economy innovation. on behalf of the city of emeryville, now, this was the only request that i made, i requested $600,000 to help finance the sizement retrofitting of the city's principle and only emergency community gathering and housing facility in the event of a natural disaster. it's the enry -- emery unified high school gymnasium. they've used these funds to finance 15% of the initial costs for phase one of the project for seismic planning and development which in total would cost about $4 million. the balance of the funding will come from redevelopment funds directly from the city of emeryville and also an anticipated local bond of

between $40 million and $75 million, that would also direct some funds to the project. the remainder of the necessary capital, which is expected to finish this project, will will come from state, local and federal sources, including school facilities funding, competitive state bond programs and federal development or infrastructure grants. several years ago an evaluation of the emery secondary school gymnasium was connected based on fema's criteria for structurally sound facilities and came to the following conclusion, without seismic strengthening of the buildings, they could experience high levels of localized structural and nonstructural damage in a moderate or large earthquake sufficient to pose unacceptable high levels of risk to the life safety of the building's occupants. the hayward fault which runs through emi have really and the

two neighboring cities is is considered one of the most dangerous earthquake vaults in the world. scientists agree that the hayward fault could soon experience a large earthquake with an impact on many densely populated cities throughout the bay area. the heyward fault has ruptured about every 140 years for its previous five large earthquakes and this past october marked the 140th anniversary of the 1868 earthquake which was aproximate mated to be a magnitude of about seven. the recent earthquake disasters around the world highlight the need for the highest level of structural safety in our schools and emergency facilities. may i have another minute? the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. ms. lee: this is the only request and i'm asking that we support this, mr. chairman. i would certainly support any disaster mitigation efforts for mr. flake's district, should a disaster hit his district. i would also support funding to

that. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has 0 seconds left. mr. flake: i thank the chair. let me say again, here's a chart. this is fema predisaster earmark secured by appropriators, leadership committee chairs and ranking members. if we look here, this f.y. 2009 and 2010, again, 49% and 51% respectively, the money is going to powerful appropriators or committee chairs or ranking minority mens that represent just 25% of the body. again, i will yield anybody time who can stand and say with a straight face that mother nature targets districts represented by appropriators or committee chairs or ranking minority members. i don't think that that's the way it is. i think -- and i have great respect for the lady from california, we've worked together on a number of issues and this is not just an issue that anybody has with this

particular earmark, but it's with many in this piece of legislation. we need to ensure that fema looks and does this on a risk-based way, where they look at risk and award accordingly when members of congress go and earmark, it simply becomes a spoil system. unfortunately i think that's what we're seeing here. so, madam chair, i would urge support for the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i would ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed hings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment number 7.

the chair: amendment number 7. mr. flake: $1 million predisaster mitigation for harris county flood district. the chair: amendment number 5. is that the amendment the gentleman is offering? amendment number 5? mr. flake: i believe so. i'm prepared for whichever.

i'm sorry? number 29. does that -- number 5. number 5. the chair: the clerk will designate amendment number 5. the clerk: part c amendment number 5 printed in house report 111-183 offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 573, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. >> could we ask the clerk to please read the text of the amendment so we can be sure which amendment is before the house? the chair: without objection, the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funs provided in this act under the heading federal emergency management agency, national predisaster mitigation fund, shall be available for a grant to the

harris county flood control district, texas. >> thank you. the chair: the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the chair. this amendment would remove an earmark for $1 million from the harris county flood district, would return money to fema's predisaster mitigation fund. this is a similar amendment as i just offered. these are earmarks to the predisaster mitigation fund. as i mentioned before, when it used to be that when members of congress are, i'm sorry, when organizations at the local level wanted to apply for this funding they submitted proposal to fema. fema had has a 70-page guidance document for people applying for these grants. unfortunately, when people apply now, 25% of the money that was in this grant program is gone. because it's earmarked. it's been taken away. taken off the top. where it really wasn't before. and as i mentioned before, when you have 1/4 of this funding

taken, we find that 40% of the value of that goes to just 25% of the members. or actually 40% of the value goes to just 13% of the members in this body, those who represent -- their districts represented by appropriators. again, i will gladly yield time to anybody who can stand and say that mother nature targets districts represented by appropriators or other powerful members more than they do, more than mother nature does other districts. it simply doesn't happen. but, again, fema has asked if they could establish a more risk-based program where they could evaluate risk and allocate funding accordingly. that's how it should be done. but we in congress have said no because why? we like the system how it is. because it's easy to earmark. and it makes it more likely that members, particularly of the appropriations committee, can get earmarks for their district. and that's what we have here.

in this particular case, this flood control district before we started earmarking this account applied for a grant under the predisaster mitigation program and got a grant. so exetively they established that they had need for it. that's how it should be. but then the next year, i don't know if it was going to get the grant or just didn't want to apply, but money was earmarked and then the next year earmarked again. now this year there's another earmark for that same flood control district. i think it's time to let fema decide under a risk-based formula where this funding should go. we all know the process here. it's why we have a commission to close military bases, because we simply can't discipline ourselves as members to say that district or that base in my district may need to be closed. and then we move to protect other people's bases if they'll protect ours. the process of log rolling takes affect. that's why it's best to

establish criteria and let the agency do the work. if we don't like how they do it, we exercise oversight and force them to change the program and to do it equitably. but to do it this way just means that a spoil system occurs. and that's what we have here and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chairman. the gentleman from arizona's amendment purports to be fiscally conservative. i have, as a member of congress over the years, established one of the best fiscal conservative ratings in congress. i voted against $2.6 trillion of spending under president bush, $1.3 trillion so far under this%. i've consistently been ranked as one of the fiscally conservative members of congress and we each are elected by our districts to use our good judgment, to use discretion and in my case fiscally conservative standards and those spending requests that

we -- that we push forward, those that we set aside, worked aggressively with my ranking member and members of this committee to try to save money in this bill and others, but the city of houston, harris county, has suffered in the most recent hurricane, hurricane ike which just hit the gulf coast, hit houston the hardest. $2.1 billion of damage to the -- just southeast texas, the federal government's reimbursed. the city of houston alone, harris county, home damage, $8.5 billion worth of damage to homes in harris county. now, i ask for very little as a member of congress to try to help the people of houston. one area where we need help is in flood control. one where are with -- where we clearly need help is in mitigation, to help prevent additional damage.

because of the work i've done as a member of the appropriations committee and the few areas i've asked for help on are on national security, border security, medical and scientific research and in flood control and in flood control the homes -- some didn't flood. the texas medical center did not flood as a result of this hurricane because of work that i was able to do with the help of my colleagues on the appropriations committee, the harris county delegation working together. mr. flake's amendment would strike all federal funding for all of harris county. flood control. his amendment not only would save no money to all my fellow fiscal conservatives out there watching, that would be one thing, your amendment saves nothing and would you eliminate all federal flood control money for all of harris county which just got hammered by the biggest hurricane to hit southeast texas in my lifetime. let me yield briefly to my ranking member, mr. rogers and i'd be happy to yield to my chairman, mr. price. mr. rogers: i think the

gentleman would be derelict in his duties to the congress and the people of his district and the country if you didn't make these efforts to help the people that you represent. that's not a unique thing to try to help the people that you represent in the u.s. congress. and i salute the gentleman. mr. culberson: in a fiscally conservative way, i might add. i'm proud to yield to mr. price. mr. price: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i'd like to add my word of commendation for looking out for his people, looking out for his home area and crafting an amendment that is responsive to some very real perils and i just say once again, these proposals have been vetted by fema. there's no question they underwent rigorous scrutiny and this is consistent with the stafford act and will protect lives and reduce property damages in this locate so i commend him for his advocacy. mr. culberson: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd also like to say that each member of congress as i have

said myself, i have published every request that i submit for designated spending on my website. i was the first member of congress to send a twitter message from the oval office. the first one to send a twitter message from the floor of congress. i love technology. my hero, thomas jefferson, always said to try all abuses at the bar of public opinion and i believe very strongly in transparency and openness. i published every appropriations request i've ever made on my website since 2003. i was the first member of congress to do so. i published every appropriation funding designated funding request think a received on my website since 2003. i believe i was the first member of congress to do so. because i don't ask for much. i will not make -- i will not make a funding request for a private individual or a private company. i limit them to national security, border security, local units of government, state government or the texas medical center, god bless them, the great work they're doing at m.d. anderson hospital and the nation's space program or flood

control. the houston ship channel will silt up in six months unless we on the appropriations committee direct the army corps of engineers to dredge it. they would not have built a railroad bridge between connecting galveston island to the texas mainland unless the homeland security committee and i want to thank you again for connecting galveston island to the mainland. that's not even in my district. nor is the texas -- the houston ship channel. these are fiscally conservative requests. i don't think you'll find any member of congress with higher fiscally conservative standards i odo. i think the request is appropriate. it's absolutely necessary for an area that got hammered by the hurricane. i urge defeat of the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. members are reminded to address their comments to the chair. mr. flake: may i ask the time

remaining. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. the chair: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. mr. culberson: every piece of legislation directs which parts of arizona do you have? you've got -- mr. flake: the east valley. mr. culberson:e let's say congress passes a piece of legislation to designate funding for kidd peak observatory. erbil congress passes designates funding. we have to be fiscally responsible -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i'm a slow learner. let me remind the gentleman, this district, harris county, received $1 million when they aplide for the funding, before the earmarks started, two years ago. last year -- three years ago.

two years ago got $1 million earmark, one year ago got a $1 million earmark, and this year asking for another $1 million earmark. yet we had a member from texas stand up and ask money to be moved to the predisaster mitigation account because he couldn't get funding in his district. because a quarter of the funding is gone before he applies. i already explained the spoil system that's here and nobody has taken me up on the offer, i'll yield time to anybody that can tell me mother nature targets districts represented by appropriaters. >> i'll happily take your challenge and debate it with you. mr. flake: i know better. i urge adoption of the amendment.

we have to be more fiscally responsible and have a system at fema based on risk and merit rather than spoils. this is a system based on spoils right new. that's why the dppings of the amendment should be done. i yield back. the chair: the question son the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed. to the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceed option the amendment of the gentleman will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. flake: i have an amendment at the desk. this is amendment number two with regard to hometown security. the chair: the clerk will designate amendment number two. the chair: part c, amendment number two, offered by mr. flake of arizona. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 573, the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: this amendment would remove $10 million in funding for the national institute for homeland security based in some every set, kentucky and reduce the overall cost of the bill by a commensurate amount. this is not the first time i've brought this earmark to the floor. this earmark is always noticeable if for nothing else than the cost compared to most earmarks in the bill. this is one of the largest earmarks we have in the homeland security bill year after year. this year it costs taxpayers $10 million and this would be the lowest delaffer amount the institute has received since its creation in 2004. according to the website, the national institute for homeland security is an independent, nonprofit corporation designed to allow universities in kentucky to, quote, more effectively compete for research funds aimed at improving homeland security,

unquote. it says the institute's end goal is to match up low sal universities with projects, then commercialize the resulting project. madam chairman, we all know congress has a problem with spending overall. i mean, we have $7.87 billion stimulus pack. we had a massive omnibus appropriations bill. we've had numerous bailouts of private companies. now we're facing nearly $2 trillion in deficits just this year. when i came to this body eight years ago, our total budget was around $2 trillion. now we'll have a deficit by that same amount. yet here we are, funding a nonprofit organization, which again, according to its own website apparently would not exist without the assistance of congress. and it seems that the purpose of this center is to attract other earmarks. it's an institute that seems to be -- to beget other earmarks.

i simply don't think we can continue to do this. since it was created, the institute received $700 million in taxpayer funding, 2k4r0rs million in 2006 and 2007. $11 million in 2008 and 2009. when will this end? when will we say enough is enough? we've funded this institute enough and it'll have to compete on its own for other grants. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam chairman, the consortium of kentucky colleges and universities was asked by the department of homeland security if they'd take on research projects the department needs answers on and the consortium said, yes, we will. they said we can't compete probably singly, working by

ourselves, with the m.i.t.'s or cal teches or the harvards or maybe phoenix university or the university of arizona. but collectively, as a group, we can. and so, the department gives the project to the consortium and the best pieces of the consortium then collect together to work on that project. university of kentucky may be teamed up with western kentucky university. university of louisville or perhaps an out of state university. and they work on and solve the project the department has need for. to set the record straight, the institute receives specified research task orders from the science and technology direct rat at d.h.s. the task orders are then farmed out to the consortium of colleges and universities

throughout the state of kentucky and other public and private entities across the country for their input on that particular problem. this process taps into and unleashes the intellectual firepower of our best and brightest people to address new and emerging threats to the homeland. these are competitive grants. make no mistake. these are competitive grants, all decisions on funding are made by the department of homeland security. so far, 22 projects are under way. dozens of colleges and universities participating. these are low-cost solutions. with a minimal footprint and maximum results. a couple of examples. university of kentucky -- researchers have developed a system to maintain the security of raw milk. as it is transported from the dairy farm to the processing plant to combat a problem we found in china, where many

dozens of young people were killed in school by milk that had been tainted. critical in our -- in securing our food supply. that system is now available across america and is being used. university of louisville researchers are developing a system that samples air particles in large enclosed spaces such as shopping malls, shorts -- sports venues to detect the presence of explosive materials. we know from the london and madrid mass transit bombings that terrorists seek enclosed places. western kentucky university teamed up with the university of louisville and designed devices to detect leaks in rail transport tanker cars. chlorine or ammonium nitrate spill in any neighborhood could be disastrous. research funds have been rewarded to reduce the explosive potential of ammonium

nitrate by coating it with coal combustion byproducts. when mixed, these two chemicals form a common explosive material for terrorists and were the deadly material used in the tragic oklahoma city bombing. mitoc provides communication services to disaster sites to make interoperable communications where it did not exist and these -- in these public venues. mitoc has been deployed to areas around the country to help them solve the interoperable need for communications in the disaster scene when no other communications systems were work, including texas in hurricane ike and recently in kentucky in the massive ice storm throughout the entire state. so these are research projects producing results that the department needs and asked this

consortium to do and is engaging in the intellectual firepower of these universities and colleges in kentucky and their counterparts throughout the country. and it's one of the best things the department has ever done. i'm happy to say it's in my home state of kentucky. i yield to the gentleman. mr. price: if the gentleman will yield, i want to commend him for his advocacy of these outstanding programs and join him in opposition to this ill-conceived amendment. >> i reserve. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaiming. -- remaining. mr. flake: there have been a few statements that the department of homeland security or fema somehow endorse these amendments. or endorse these projects. according to o.m.b., the

administration responses about the eefermark requests quote, should not be construed as evaluation or recommendation of specific earmark requests based on merit or value. we can say that, hey, the agency want this is. but the official position of the administration is, we're taking no position. and of course, they really can't. because these earmarked dollars are sometimes taking from the accounts that they would otherwise use to give grants based on merit or based on risk. again, this chart is even starker, when we look at the overall bill we're considering today, homeland security earmark dollars secured by appropriaters, leadership, committee chairs and ranking members. fy-2009, 45%. 45% of the total in earmarked dollars in the bill went to this group. this group represents just 25% of the bhoddy.