John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on July 23, 2007, I was unable to be present for all rollcall votes because I was returning from Iraq where I was able to meet with soldiers from Fort Hood. If present, I would have voted accordingly on the following rollcall votes: Roll No. 687 on H.R. 404, the Federal Customer Service Enhancement Act--``yea.'' Roll No. 688 on H. Res. 553, Mourning the passing of former First Lady, Lady Bird Johnson, and celebrating her life and contributions to the people of the United States--``yea.'' Roll No. 689 on H. Res. 535, Commending David Ray Ritcheson, a survivor of one of the most horrific hate crimes in the history of Texas, and recognizing his efforts in promoting Federal legislation to combat hate crimes--``nay.'' Roll No. 690 on Previous Question on H. Res. 558, Providing for consideration of the bill making appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development--``nay.'' personal explanation

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. CARTER. I thank my friend and colleague from North Carolina. This is an interesting document that we have got here. I have got a copy, certainly a smaller version than is on the board there. These Top 100 broken promises, I thought it would just be interesting to just thumb through here and turn to a page and see if we can find one that we might find interesting. I am just going to randomly look here. Let's see, energy policy, Energy Independence Day. Promise: ``We will make this 4th of July Energy Independence Day.'' That's coming up next week, I believe. That's from Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi back on May 9, 2007, at a press conference. ``The House energy bill has evolved into a heated internecine battle'' that threatens to spoil Democrats' hope of passing an overall energy policy by July 4. ``Pelosi versus Dingell Heats Up.'' ``Energy Tension Rises At Meeting,'' Roll Call, one of our newspapers here on the Hill, June 13, 2007. ``House Members will depart for the 4th of July district work period without passing independence energy legislation of any kind.'' That's a quick look through here. Let's look over here at something else. ``Eliminate Reliance on Foreign Oil,'' promise: ``To free America from dependence on foreign oil, we will achieve energy independence for America by 2020 by eliminating reliance on oil from the Middle East and other unstable regions of the world.'' ``Nancy Pelosi, A New Direction for America,'' her speech, page 6. ``During the first 6 months of the Democrat- controlled Congress, no energy independence legislation has been passed by the House, much less sent to the President's desk. But 228 Democrats voted to impose more than $6.5 billion in new taxes on small and independent American energy producers, which will lead to less domestic supply, higher prices for consumers, and an increase in America's dependence on foreign sources.'' That's also from Roll Call. Let's turn over here a couple of more pages and look at what we can find. Probably one of the things that Americans worry about most is their security for their families and their that children. You know, we don't ever want the United States of America to have to suffer the kind of terrorist activity that our friends in Israel suffer where, when you send your kids to the park to play ball or just swing or just visit with their friends, there is some idiot that wants to blow you up and kill you. We don't want that in this country. Homeland Security is important. The Democrats, when they ran the last election, they made promises that they would implement all of the 9/11 Commission report. That was kind of their campaign. ``On the first day we control Congress, we will begin by passing all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations,'' that's what the then minority leader Nancy Pelosi promised in the last election cycle campaign. Another part of that promise, ``House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says she plans to pass all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations within 100 legislative hours of a Democrat takeover of the House of Representatives.'' That comes from Congressional Quarterly. But, now, I am afraid that promise got broken. Let's see what they actually did here. ``But the 9/11 package will not include a reorganization of congressional oversight of Homeland Security Department or an attempt to declassify the intelligence budget, despite the fact that those two were key recommendations. Although the Democrats pledged during the election to implement all of the Commission's unfulfilled recommendations, aides now concede that doing so will be harder than they thought,'' Congressional Daily, December 15, 2006. ``Pass clean spending bills without Iraq policy changes. House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Ranking Member John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, told reporters last week that he would not use the spending bills to enact policy on Iraq, a war he strongly opposes.'' That's from Congressional Daily. Then we have ``A Broken Promise.'' An editorial in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette accused Democrats of using the supplemental spending bill to author resolutions that would severely restrict supplies and reinforcements for American troops in harm's way and would tie the President's hands by imposing all kinds of conditions on his ability to reinforce the troops. It comes from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette editorial, February 21, 2006. CNN John Roberts questioned John Murtha, Democrat from Pennsylvania, about his slow-bleed scheme to undermine our generals and our troops on the ground on the American Morning, CNN, April, 2007. Mr. Roberts asked ``You heard what President Bush said, that Congress shouldn't be micromanaging the war. What do you say?'' John Murtha, ``That's our job, John.'' On the upcoming Department of Defense spending bill, it's clear that House Democrats and Representative Murtha do intend to attach to the latest version of his slow-bleed scheme to undermine our troops. House Democrat leaders are considering votes next month on another legislative package aimed at changing course in Iraq and might announce those plans this week,'' said aides Monday. ``The Iraq language would be an attached to the Defense Appropriations bill.'' This was June 26, 2007, ``Democrats Weighing Attempt to Change Course of Iraq War,'' another broken promise. Let's thumb over here just a little bit more and see what we can do. Something that--I just heard a lecture this morning by an expert from over at Georgetown University on international terrorism, where he told us in an hour-long lecture that the resources that we have on the ground, and the intelligence community and the special operations forces that operate are critical in being able to bring down al Qaeda, which is a world-wide network, and, quite frankly, very, very much still alive in countries like England and Western Europe, and their number one target is still to attack the United States of America. He stressed that we have got to have intelligence at every level assisting us in finding these people. I think this was recognized when we started this session of Congress. Here is a promise, ``We all, Democrats and Republicans alike, take very seriously our responsibility to protect the American people. We know the important role that intelligence plays in that.'' Another bill, another promise, ``This bill contains robust funding for critical intelligence programs.'' The first quote was from Nancy Pelosi. This is from Silvestre Reyes, chairman of the Intelligence Committee. But here is the broken promise. ``Democrats pledge to provide full funding for critical intelligence programs. But just months after taking power, they took precious resources away from critical intelligence programs and used the money to fund research on global warming instead. Led by U.S. Representative Silvestre Reyes of Texas, a coalition of D.C. Democrats say national security will be better served if the CIA cash is used for global warming research, because apparently there just aren't enough people studying this issue out there.'' This is from an article that says Intelligence Committee Threatens National Committee, Detroit News editorial, May 13, 2007. We can move on. This is fun. You just turn to a page and see what we have got here. I welcome anybody to come turn the page for me. I am not making these things up here. ``Reform Entitlement Spending to Protect Future Generations. This summer, Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman said the administration would return to entitlements and taxes in earnest following the elections. Senior Democrats on the House and Senate Budget Committees, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Representative John Spratt of South Carolina, responded by saying Congress, not the administration, must drive these efforts.'' That's from The Hill newspaper. But the broken promises, but the Democrat budget plan puts off tough and divisive decisions. Democrats did not include proposals to control growth and entitlement programs that are projected to swamp the rest of the budget in coming decades as the baby boom generation retires. That comes from Congressional Quarterly March 29, 2007. Democrat budget does nothing to curtail runaway entitlement spending, Tallahassee Democrat editorial April 16, 2007. So we've just got promise after promise after promise. And as my colleague from North Carolina pointed out to us tonight, we've got an approval rating of this Congress at 14 percent, the lowest in the history of the United States Congress, by my understanding. The last time we were close to this low was back when the Democrats were last in power back just before 1994. This is a sacred body here. And it's important to win elections, and people use a lot of tools to win elections. But back where I come from, and where a lot of the folks around here come from, when you tell somebody you're going to do something, you ought to do it. I once had a man tell me, if you ever serve in a legislative body, the greatest tool you take to that body is your word. And if you give somebody your word, you ought to keep it. And if you don't keep it, you ought to go home. And that's a man named Bob Johnson, who there now is an office building in the Capitol complex in Austin, Texas named after this great Texan. That is great advice. And that's why these broken promises, I think, should weigh upon all of us because, quite frankly, a man or a woman's word ought to be their bond. And if you say you're going to do something, you ought to do it, and if you can't do it, you ought to at least try. And if you're not going to try, then you've broken your promise. And that's really not what this House ought to be all about. I know there's a lot of campaign rhetoric, but a lot of these things were not said in campaign and, in fact, many of them were said right on the floor of this House as a pledge to the colleagues in this House. These pledges shouldn't be broken. We have a duty to raise the level of honor that it now seems to be the American people seem to be perceived is lost in this House of Representatives. I hope we can all take my friend Bob Johnson, who's now passed away, his advice. Let's make our word our bond. I'll yield back to my colleague from North Carolina.

Mr. CARTER. And I thank the gentlelady for yielding to me. As you were reading those interesting broken promises, I was thumbing through here and saw my name in one of them so I thought I might read about it. Broken promise No. 43: Protect U.S. Borders. Promise: ``I believe there is virtually unanimous agreement in Congress that we must secure our borders and know who is entering our country.'' Then-House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, press release May 25, 2006. Promise: ``Democrats are for the rule of law. We want to get the border security right. We would do what's necessary to protect our borders.'' Then House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, press release December 15, 2005. Broken promise: ``Just 6 months after Democrats took power in the House, 114 House Democrats voted against a Republican proposal to provide the funds necessary for construction of at least two layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barrier, roads, lighting cameras and sensors pursuant to section 102 (b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1986.'' This comes from the GOP Motion to Recommit, a rollcall vote, June 15, 2007. Broken promise: ``218 Democrats voted against an amendment by Representative John Carter, Republican, Texas to strike new bureaucratic hurdles in the Homeland Security Appropriations bill designed to undermine the Department's efforts to complete the construction of the fence along the border. As Brit Hume said recently on Fox News: `House Democrats added more than a dozen new rules the administration must meet before it can spend more money on the border fence.' Special report, Brit Hume, Fox News, June 18, 2007.'' And I thank the gentlelady for yielding.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 550, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 549, I was unavoidably detained and unable to be present to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, on June 22, 2007, I was unable to be present for all rollcall votes due to an unexpected delay. If present, I would have voted accordingly on the following rollcall votes: roll No. 543--``nay''; roll No. 544--``nay''; roll No. 545--``aye''; roll No. 546--``aye''; roll No. 547--``aye''; roll No. 548--``nay''.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Chairman Price, in Texas, it's my understanding that over 400 landowners have already been consulted. The Governor of the State has been consulted. Sixty of the Governors, Homeland Security advisers in our State and other States have been consulted. Thirty-five city mayors and county judges have been consulted. Twenty-eight local sheriffs have been consulted, and seven town hall-type meetings have been held to discuss the border. We are a part of the country where private property borders Mexico from Brownsville all the way to El Paso. And so we are very, very aware of private property rights and the rights of our cities, and we are consulting with them. My concern is the withholding, the stall or withholding of funds when the process is already in place. We've already been working with our landowners on wildlife. And the environmental concerns, should we hold back our homeland security because of a fear that trial lawyers are going to file frivolous lawsuits to try to stall this fence on environmental concerns? I think we need to take a hard look at what our goal is. And, quite frankly, our goal is to secure the people of the United States along the border and protect our borders from incursions.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the chairman for recognizing me. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) my colleague, who has joined me as a cosponsor of this amendment. I am very pleased to thank the chairman of this subcommittee, who has done a wonderful job on this bill, and I am very honored to serve with him. I would also like to thank the ranking member, Mr. Rogers, for all the hard work has done on this bill. We all agree, our southern borders are in crisis. We don't want to create any problems to get our fencing that's authorized and appropriated for. We don't want to have any interference. This amendment removes bureaucratic and environmental obstacles that restrict funding for the construction of the fence on our southern border. This amendment strikes a number of restrictions on the border funding of fencing and tactical infrastructure, including various reporting requirements attached to funding restrictions, requirements that DHS must coordinate with Interior agencies to minimize the impact on wildlife and natural resources, requires DHS must formally consult with State and local communities and solicit their advice and support of the projects, ultimately giving them some sort of veto, and restricts the funding for the use of the Secretary's environmental waiver until the waiver has been published in the Federal Register for a period of 15 days. Each one of these things has the potential to slow down or interfere with or stop the construction of the fence. Bureaucratic hurdles are not what we are looking for on the southern border. It's protection for our southern border. To ask for advice and support gives local communities potential for a veto. Our border security shouldn't be held hostage to some group like that. We do consult with the landowners, over 400 have been consulted, one Governor has been consulted, 60 Governors' assistants have been consulted. A multitude of city and council officials have been consulted as border and fencing plans are developed. We are doing the job. We don't want funding withheld. That's what this does. Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CARTER. To my colleagues whom I highly respect, let me say this: I'm concerned about the part about withholding funds as we consult. I agree that we should consult. I do not agree that they have to support it. And the question I would raise is, what happens if they don't? Do we then not build the fence that the Border Patrol in Laredo, Texas, told me they had to have to survive? So that's the secret word that I'm concerned about. Consult, I'm all for. But if they vote 4-3 on the city council not to do it, then what happens to the funds? What happens to the fence? On the issue of wildlife in Texas, we have wildlife-proof fences in south Texas on literally every ranch there because, quite frankly, the deer on those ranches are very expensive and they protect them. And already we are providing water gaps for those whose cattle graze in the Rio Grande.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First, I'd like to start out by saying that I do serve on the Homeland Security Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. It's a deep honor for me to be there. It's a deep honor for me to work with Chairman Price, who is an honorable man and has done hard work on this bill. It's an honor for me to work with Ranking Member Rogers, who has done hard work on this bill. And I agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that there has been a lot of diligence on this bill, a lot of hard work on this bill, and in my opinion, every Member of this Congress probably has, as a first thought, what the Homeland Security Department does to protect our families from terrorists around the world and from other disasters that can strike our families. I can assure you that this subcommittee certainly does that. This hard work being done does not mean that there aren't differences of opinion on how things should be done because, in fact, in our very subcommittee, and in the overall committee of the Appropriations Committee, there is a difference of opinion on directions that we should take. Just, for example, on the issue of the border fence, there are those who think that the border fence needs to be built and it needs to be built now, and all obstructions have to be taken away from that that might obstruct building that fence. I happen to be one of those people, and yet, honorable men and women disagree. And those who are in the majority, they do set the policy for the bill that is before us today. I personally think that it's our duty and responsibility as Members of Congress to debate the issues, whether you're on the Appropriations Committee or not, and by raising issues that are being raised on this side of the aisle on this bill, that we are saying that the Appropriations Committee has not done their job. We're saying we want to put a microscope, put sunshine on the process and see what we see, and then each Member, whether they be right on their amendment or whether they be wrong on their amendment, certainly has the responsibility to submit their opinion on this bill. We talk about a term that I think that's kind of peculiar, and I certainly was not a Member of this Congress when whoever came up with the term ``earmark,'' but there's a whole lot of folks in the United States that know what an earmark is, and it doesn't have anything to do with what we're doing here in Congress today. It has to do with a method of identifying livestock, and in old days and maybe in some more rustic scenes today, an earmark was actually the notch cut in the ear of an animal. Now, I'm sure that's offensive to many people, but today, it generally is a tattoo or a tag that designates what the owner intends to do with that animal. And at least in the ranching business, they go out and they mark those that are the keepers and the culls. There are the animals that they're going to keep in their breeding stock, and there are the culls which are the ones they're going to take to market and sell as one way the earmark functions. And the owner of that livestock designates someone to make that designation of how they should earmark the livestock, and I assume that whoever came up with the term ``earmark'' as it relates to special projects in the appropriations process thought it was a good term because basically, that's the decisions that the owner, i.e., the voter, the American public, asks their individual representative to make about the spending on special projects that's going to be done by the United States Congress. And so who is the designated person for the 31st Congressional District to make this decision? And I think the people elected me to do that. I think there are 435 individual people here that the folks who originally own this money and gave it to us to use, they said you make the decision on how this money is going to be spent. This is a republic, and we have sent our representative to speak on our behalf to say this is a project that has worth and this is a project that has no worth; this is a keeper and that is a cull. And that is actually the duty and the responsibility by our oath of every person who sits in every chair of this House.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, when we had these scandals, and we had the debate last term of Congress about this airdropping, this appropriations process, the public asked us to put what we were doing under a microscope and then let them see it. That's what we are doing today. That's what we are going to continue to do until the whole process is visible and out in the daylight, and that's what this is all about.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This has been a stimulating debate, and I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for joining in this debate. Yesterday evening we were accused of delaying and taking up all of the time, and I think we have equally shared the time this morning, and I am very proud to have the help of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle in continuing this debate because I think it is important that we hear from all sides. In fact, that is what this is all about. We keep talking about us, but I think that the Democratic Representatives on the other side of the aisle individually have the same right to see and debate these earmarks as the people on the Republican side of the aisle. I am not arguing this point only for Republicans. I believe that the individual Members who are elected by the people in their district to make sure they are on top of spending have the same right.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CARTER. No, I haven't.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that I follow my colleagues that have worked in law enforcement, for I, too, have worked in the court systems of criminal justice. This 287(g) program to me is an exciting idea that has great potential, and I would love to see it expanded to where we have trained every law enforcement officer in America in just the style that my colleague from Washington just described, so that they can not only honor the diversity as he described, but also can participate in enforcing the laws of the United States, where the resources required for interior enforcement of the immigration laws, the number is overwhelming. To me, it is a good use of resources to use good, honest law enforcement wherever it exists to enforce the laws of this land. I thought about this the other night, because it's an experience that most everyone here probably, if they will confess, has had. If you live in Houston, Texas, where my colleague, Ms. Jackson-Lee, lives, or pick a town, it doesn't really matter, Washington, D.C., Cincinnati, Ohio, and you get a parking ticket, if you fail to pay that parking ticket, you're probably going to get a notice from the department that takes care of parking tickets, and they're going to send you that notice and tell you that you have failed to appear to answer to this parking ticket. They're going to stick a fine on there to go with the parking ticket fine. It could be $100, it could be $50, whatever the jurisdiction chooses, and then that letter is going to say, if you don't pay these two offenses, then we're going to issue a warrant for your arrest on a parking ticket. Believe me, it happens every day. Ask my daughter, okay? Now, they probably aren't going to get out and serve that warrant unless they do some mass roundup, but generally they don't do that. But you're driving down the street, if you get that ticket in Houston, Texas, and you happen to be in Dallas with a broken taillight, and a police officer stops you to tell you he wants to give you a warning about your broken taillight and he runs the national system of warrants that's available across this Nation. Guess what he finds? They have a warrant for your arrest for a parking ticket in Houston, Texas, and he will arrest you; and he will put you in jail or hold you until you deal with that ticket. Now, that's what happens to every American citizen that follows the scenario that I just gave you, or could happen to them. Now, 18 months ago, when I was meeting with ICE people, I asked them how many absconders we had from these folks that were catch-and-release that had been ordered to court and had failed to appear on the ICE warrants. I found the number was approximately 700,000 people. It's probably more now, because I'm talking about 18 months ago; that's the number they gave to me. And I asked the ICE agents, are there warrants issued for their arrests? Are they in the system? And will local law enforcement respect those warrants? And I couldn't get an answer. I was privately told, ``No.'' Now, this program, with trained officers out on the street, at least we could pick up violators of the Federal law who had disrespected the court system created by this Federal law and had failed to appear in that court. At least we could pick them up in the manner we pick up people who get a parking ticket. We have to be inventive in this problem that we are facing with massive violation of the law in the immigration system. And I think the 287(g) is the core, so that we train to find these people in prison. There were times when we were at the jail commission trying to close our county jail for overcrowdedness that the district judges would review it every Friday evening, and we would find that 30 percent of the inmates in our jail would be illegal aliens. Thirty percent. And sometimes higher. Let's have trained people. Let's support this amendment. Let's have trained people and let the departments that want to participate put trained people on the street to deal with ICE issues.

Mr. CARTER. I beg to differ. These bills were passed by the House of Representatives, in the last two terms I served on this committee, before the 4th of July. I think you can check with the subcommittee chairman, and he will agree with me on that.

Mr. CARTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wish to correct your mistake in your opening statement. I have been serving on this committee for the last 2 years, and the House of Representatives has finished the appropriations process by the 4th of July both terms that I served in Congress. So I think the statement made as an opening was a mistake.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, the reason we are in this debate today, one of the reasons, is we have created a process where instead of 435 people will meet their constitutional obligation of their oath to determine how the earmarks will be spent, we have narrowed it down to one or whatever his designation may be, and I think that is inappropriate, although I will say and I wish to end by saying Mr. Obey is an honorable man, and I have the greatest respect for him. But that's not the way we were supposed to act when we came to Congress. We were supposed to participate in this process of determining the earmarks.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this has been a wonderful debate. For about 30 years, I hung around courtrooms and watched lawyers talk to juries, and a lot of times lawyers use terminology that people didn't understand. We just used a ton of terminology, and every once in a while pick up on one or two that I think that maybe newcomers to this House really don't understand, maybe someone else that might be in the House or listening to the House might not understand. I want to talk about some of those things. First I would like to address, before I do that, I want to point out that we have done an awful lot of talk about history. You know, last year is history. In fact, yesterday is history. Today is reality and tomorrow, who knows. But there was just a tirade of numbers thrown out of Congresses just a few months ago. If you want to play that game, then let's take the 40 years prior to the Republicans coming into the majority of Congress and say, what about those 20 Congresses that had the opportunity to reform the appropriations process? That's a ridiculous argument. That argument carries no water whatsoever. The reality of the problem that we are addressing on earmarks actually came to the forefront when the vast majority of the people that sit in these chairs, in both parties, were surprised by the activities of a few who violated their sacred trust to the United States Government. We had an election where all of us got painted with the brush of that few. But the reality is, the vast majority of people on this side of the aisle, and I am sure my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, were shocked to disbelief over some of the things that occurred with Members of the Congress, and are continuing to occur, to come to light. Recently, we had light spread on another shocking event that we have had here in Congress. You know, the nature of democracy is that problems leap up in your face, and you react to those problems. We have had leap into our face that secretism when dealing with money causes people like Jack Abramoff to end up in prison, and those that may be associated possibly end up in prison. If you look and study what happened, it's all secret things. That's the real offense we are talking about, when we say let's let daylight in on this earmark process. A term that we have used a lot is airdrop, but most people think airdrop, plane, parachute, that drops it in. What we are really talking about is once a process goes through the House and the Senate, bills come to a conference committee, which is made up of representatives of both bodies. It is in a closed room behind closed doors where the bills are worked out to where they can get a compromise that both bodies can then vote on. When we refer to airdrops, these are these expenditures and appropriation bills that when it comes back to this body, if we can dig through and find it, we go, where in the heck did that come from? We can't find any record anywhere of anybody talking about that in the Senate of the House. There it is. Where did that come from? So it's like it dropped out of thin air. I think that's where the term ``airdrop'' gets its meaning. It's that when the Members of this body and the other body look at the final product and say where did that come from. I think the proposal that's being made by the majority on their new earmark reform, by its very definition, creates a large body. We hear 31,000 possible ``where did that come from'' from for every Member of this body, except maybe one and some staffers who, some believe, are more competent than the Members of this body.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Okay. I'll wait for the bill. Amendment Offered by Mr. Reichert