>> will the gentleman yield? mr. flake: i yield 15 seconds. mr. price: did you do an example by geography. for example, those of us on the gulf coast need help with hurricane mitigation. did you analyze it geographically? mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. i think well know the alignment of appropriaters and members in powerful propositions does not align with the golf course or any other position. mr. culberson: gulf coast. mr. flake: gulf coast, golf course, whatever. mr. culberson: we do not live on golf courses. mr. flake: back to the chart, 45% went to those in powerful positions, 45% went to 25%. this year it's starker. 71% of earmarked dollars are going to 25% of this body. that is a spoil system.

i don't know how else that you can claim otherwise. unless, as i said, i'll yield simply for the purpose if somebody can stand up and say, mother nature target this is group more than others that spoil system. when we have here an earmark that's been over and over and over awarded, $74 million in taxpayer funding, $12 million in 2005, $20 million in 2006 and 2007, $11 million -- i will yield to the gentleman only if he'll answer the question yes or no, does mother nature target districts populated by appropriaters? . mr. culberson: when it comes to floods and hurricanes, they target the gulf coast. the chair: the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. flake. those in favor, say aye. opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the

noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings 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, number one. the chair: the clerk will designate amendment number one. the clerk: amendment number one 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. mr. flake: i thank the chair and i hesitate to challenge this earmark. it was secured by my colleague from arizona, mr. pastor, for whom i have great admiration and we have a great friendship. but this amendment would remove funds from the rechargeable

battery system. according to the earmark table, the recipient of this earmark is global solar is a quote, privately held company that was incorporated in 1996, that has evolved into a major producer of solar cells, unquote. the certification letter says the money will be used, quote, for the acquisition of man packable solar chargeable battery systems for use by the u.s. border patrol. my concern is not with the technology, nor with the needs of the border patrol, nor with this company in particular. my concern lies with why a specific for-profit entity was designated to receive this earmark funding. the president referred to earmarks for for-proven tits, a corrupting practice. the p.m.a. scandal that ha plagged the house of

representatives for months has centered on campaign contributions and earmarks for for-profit entities. we cannot move ahead as if nothing is happening outside this body or within the body. the justice department is investigating the relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks and that is largely the case when you have earmarks that go to for-profit companies. earmarks that are little more than sole source contracts or no-bid contracts. this is the only one gratefully in this legislation that i have been able to find, an earmark that goes to a for-profit entity. and we shouldn't be earmarking funds for private companies in this legislation. i would urge adoption of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized. mr. price: i want to turn to mr. pastor, the author of this provision. but i want to assure members that this provision, like other directed spending has been vetted down at the department of homeland security. it has been certified to be consistent with the agency's mission. otherwise it simply isn't eligible. in this item in particular, i would advise the attention of members to the actual language of the bill. page 6. this earmark is for $800,000 for procurement of portable solar charging rechargeable battery systems to be awarded under full and open competition. that language is pretty plain, isn't it? this item is required by law to be subject to a competitive procurement process, and indeed, any item now in appropriations

bills involving for-profit entities are subject to the same requirement. we need to understand that and read the language of the bill. that, let me urge my colleagues to defeat -- first to yield to my colleague from kentucky. mr. rogers: he says, all of these congressional directed spending earmarks have been vetted by the department. they have been scrubbed by our subcommittee, unlike anything before. and i join in opposition. mr. price: i thank the gentleman. i yield to mr. pastor to expand on this provision and the reasons that the proposed amendment should be rejected. mr. pastor: madam chairman, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection. mr. pastor: first of all, i want to say for the record that i have never met personally with

the company listed as the recipient for this earmark. it has stirred my interest, the technology and use of technology that i brought this request to the subcommittee. and while this is a for-profit company, which is listed as the recipient, under the new rules instituted in this congress this year, this company or any company will have to compete for the contract. and i know of at least three u.s. companies with products suitable for such competition. and a great number of foreign companies that could compete. this request has been vetted by the department of homeland security and the border patrol. the border patrol's special

response teams and technical teams have stated requirements for this technology, which allow them to recharge their power intensive equipment while deployed in the field on extended missions. these teams man pack over 100 pounds of equipment into the field on their missions so every pound saved is significant. this technology, which is basically photovoltaic fill am, light weight, portable, allow them to leave behind at the camp previously used car battery type systems in favor of this light weight, portable solar photovoltaic film. and this allows the person using it to be able to extend the

mission for a longer period of time and to be able to recharge their battery so they can use their communications system, can use sensors and allows the and will allow the border patrol to be more effective in its law enforcement efforts. this technology is currently used by the military, especially the marine corps. so the intent for this earmark is not to reward a company because they met with me or because they contributed, which they did not, but to bring forth to the attention of the border patrol that this equipment is available for competition for the companies that qualify according to their purchase order so that we can make the

border patrol as they expand into the desert, to be more effective and be able to continue their law enforcement. that is the only reason for this earmark. and i oppose the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i ask the time remaining? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. flake: i thank the chair. we have that language saying that these -- that this earmark would be awarded under full and open competition. but if you meet with the department of defense, as i have, and you ask them currently, do you compete out or do you subject the competition, the earmarks that you see? they will say yes. yes, unless we don't, basically. and so i asked them if we look at the 2008 defense bill, for

example. i asked the department of defense to actually look and do a random sampling of the earmarks that came that they say are subject to competition to see how many actually went to the earmark recipient listed. with uncanny precision, the answer came back said all of them went to the earmark recipient. if these are competed out, why do we have to mention the company at all? i don't know if it is in order to ask for unanimous consent to simply remove the name of the company, if these are going to be competed out anyway and at least three companies have this technology, would it not be in order to say -- mr. pastor: would the gentleman yield? i would have no objection if you remove the name. mr. flake: that would be in order under unanimous consent.

the chair: the gentleman may ask unanimous consent to modify his amendment. mr. flake: i ask unanimous consent to strike the name of the company listed in order that this may be subject to full and open competition. the chair: without objection, so ordered. mr. pastor: i object. it's very interesting, because the urging of your colleagues, they asked me to object. mr. flake: i have the utmost respect for my colleague from arizona. he is a straight shooter and i know if it were up to him, he would do that. and i think that some things go on their own without us realizing what we're doing. in this case, the language stands that this earmark is to go to a specific company despite

other language that may be in the legislation to say this is to be competed out. we know, based on experience, that the department of defense or department of homeland security, in this case the agency, looks to see what the committee wanted and they will award it based on that. and so it really isn't full and open competition. we shouldn't be listing the company here. so i would have to your knowledge adoption of the amendment to strike this earmark unless we can remove the company listed. i yield to the gentleman. mr. price: the only place the company is listed is in the report, which is a matter of disclosure and it's not amendable or can't be modified here on the floor. the bill, as i read earlier, the plain language of the bill, it will be competed.

the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the amendment will not be altered because objection has been heard. and the question now occurs 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 and the amendment is not agreed to. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings 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 as designee of mr. campbell. the chair: the gentleman will designate which amendment? mr. flake: number one, part d. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number one 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. mr. flake: i thank the chair and i feel obligated since i ran out of time to explain why simply because the language isn't in the bill itself or the name of the company that that still means that the earmark will likely go to the company listed. in the past few years, the previous president said he would instruct the agencies not to fund any earmarks that weren't in the bill text. and so as a way to get around and make sure the earmarks were funded, the appropriations committee inserted language that said that language in the report would carry the force of law. that's what we have been operating under the past couple of years, to make sure that those earmarks that are simply in a table or in a report still get funded. and in this case, we have language that will be in the table. the table that accompanies the

bill in the report, the table in the report lists the company, global solar that is to receive the earmark. and there's a certification that the member filed saying that this earmark is to go to this company at this address. and so notwithstanding the fact that the language isn't in the bill itself, we still have an issue where the earmark will likely go to the intended recipient. . this amendment would remove $1 million for the interoperability, a nonprofit organization and a subsidiary of search, the national consortium for justice information and statistics. in recent testimony before the house appropriations committee, the executive direct of search described the organization as a quote, state criminal justice support program with a mission to, quote, promote the effective use of information and identification technology by criminal justice agencies nationwide. this entity just received a $500,000 earmark in the omnibus bill that congress approved just a few short months ago. according to the sponsor's

office a particular earmark would support the launch of a nationwide institute to train emergency responders to better command and control emergency resources. they propose pilot project would provide training, certification, and outreach programs to state, regional, and local coordinators in the first responder community. now, this sounds strikingly familiar to a program within the department of homeland security. one that they already administer. the department of homeland security's safecom program has developed a statewide communications interoperability planning methodology a. comprehensive 10-phase process to assist stateses in their communication plan. why should federal funds be earmarked for a private organization that seeks to duplicate an effort already undertaken by the agency for which we are appropriating now? if the department of homeland security requires services that only search could provide, the administration can request funds for it. so, madam chairman, i don't any

we need to earmark funds here. there is a department within the department of homeland security that does what this private organization which just received an earmark in a bill we did a few months ago is seeking to do. with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? mr. price: i rise in opposition to this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. price: as with earlier items that we have discussed this evening, there is simply no question that this request underwent rigorous scrutiny. meets the test of being aligned with and supporting the missions of the department of homeland security. i urge my colleagues to defeat the amendment. i'm happy to yield at this point to my colleague, mr. rothman, to expand on the reasons that this amendment is ill-advised. mr. rothman: i yield to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman from north carolina controls the time. mr. price: i'm sorry.

happy to yield to the ranking member. mr. rogers: i simply want to join my chairman in opposition to the amendment for the reasons that he said. mr. price: i thank the chairman. now yield to mr. rothman. mr. rothman: thank you, madam chairman. first i'd like to thank chairman price and ranking member rogers and my fellow subcommittee members for their leadership on this entire homeland security legislation and for their support for this project. as you know the department of homeland security reviewed this project and had no objection to it. this is a good bill and a good project. mr. flake's amendment would remove funding for this project that would otherwise help local, state, and federal emergency response agencies better communicate and coordinate the aftermath of of a terrorist attack or natural disaster. my district is across the river from the -- where the twin to youers in new york city. we know firsthand the

difficulties that arose in that terrible tragedy because of the inoperability, the lack of communication technologies, working together, among police, fire, and other emergency services. there was a landmark publication, why can't we talk, which was produced in the wake of 9/11, produced by national task force of 18 associations representing public safety. it noted five key reasons why first responders struggled to communicate sometimes with their own agencies. this project, this $1 million project, would support specific initiatives established in the national emergency communications plan delivered to congress in july, 2008, by the u.s. department of homeland security's office of emergency communications. working in partnership with that office, the national institute for communications interoperability would address the most critical issue facing the first responder --

community today. their ability to command and control emergency resources in response to terrorist acts, natural disasters, and crimes through interagency communication. this project will not only help to make our nation safer by demonstrating how various regional emergency responses can better coordinate, but it will help to ensure that local, state, and federal tax dollars that have already been allocated in previous homeland security measures and in previous budgets throughout the united states are used more wisely. the primary goal of this project is to ensure the best possible use of taxpayer money by public safety officers and first responder organizations. federal, state, and local governments have invested a substantial amount of capital as they should have on first responder equipment, emergency plans, and safety personnel.

it makes sense for congress to support a project that will help to coordinate these efforts and maximize the return on these essential investments. i urge the defeat of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask the time remaining. the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. flake: i thank the chair. i would urge adoption of the amendment. as i mentioned when you look at the bill itself, you see again the spoil system that's occurring here. 71% of the dollar value of earmarks in this legislation go to just 25% of this body. 71% goes to 25%. that's not an equal distribution. as we know mother nature does not target those districts represented by appropriators or powerful members. yet we have a system that awards earmarks gaced on those

criteria -- based on those criteria. mr. rothman: is the gentleman aware there will be five areas across the country that will be supported by this program as determined by this organization which has been established by 50 states and the territories? mr. flake: that's right. i am also aware that the department of homeland security has a similar program that does similar things. yet we are earmarking over and above on top of that. i simply think that if we don't like the way the department of homeland security is allocating resource, we need to change that. but we need to give them guidance, we need to oversee what they do. for example in my district a couple years ago, department of homeland security spent money to synchronize streetlights in a small town in my district. that wasn't appropriate use of funds. but instead of spending time rooting out that kind of waste, we are saying, we don't like the way you did that, so we are going to do some of our own.

so we have a duplicative program. in the end we end up spending more money and more money. that's why the budget increases for this agency every year. we simply cannot continue to do that. when we have a $2 trillion budget deficit this year alone. at some point we've got to say, we've got to save taxpayer money. spend it wisely. and do it in a way that actually addresses risk not seniority. or not committee -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: happy to yield to my friend from new jersey. mr. rothman: i thank the gentleman. my friend from arizona does not, madam chairman, dispute the validity and the importance of coordinating emergency communications throughout the united states. nor does my friend from arizona dispute that this project would be -- represents five pilot

projects across the country. so i find it difficult to believe that there would be any objection to this very valuable program that has already met with success and is deserving of an additional new outreach to the first responders and emergency personnel across the country. i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. price: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: does the gentleman yield back his time? mr. price: i'm sorry. i thought we were on to the next stage. of course i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question now occurs on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amount is not agreed . to the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i ask for a recorded vote. cape pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings

by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. mr. price: i move the committee rise. the chair: the question is on the motion to rise. the committee now rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 2892 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2892, and has come to no resolution thereon.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maine rise? ms. pingree: mr. speaker, by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 572 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 79, house resolution

572, resolved that at any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 2647, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the department of defense to proscribe military personnel strength for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on armed services. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. section 2, a, it shall be in order to consider as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of of a substitute recommend by the committee on armed services now printed in the bill. the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. all points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule 21. b, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. c, etch amendment printed in the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, except as specified in section 4 of this resolution. may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specifie t