I don’t think excercising fiscal conservatism is being an emotionally driven idiot. On the contrary, it appears that is the case for much of the rest of Congress here- voting for the bill as a facade to say they support border security. If what he says is true, then they had plenty of money for this already, as DOHS was already over-budgeted $2.2 billion.

Congress has a tendancy to throw money at problems without any real solution- why should I believe this is any different?

Sorry, Ted, that is my opinion of him.

Senator George V. Voinovich (R-OH), the Senate’s top “Debt Hawk,”today voted against a fiscally irresponsible amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill because of his concern that it would burden our children and grandchildren with another $3 billion of debt.

Sen. Voinovich, in the following floor speech entered into the record today, points out that:

ü He agrees with his colleagues that we must secure our borders and provide the resources to do it;

ü And he agrees that we must secure our borders now – but actually do the fiscally responsible thing and find a way to pay for it;

ü The “emergency spending”designation is being used as a budget gimmick so that Congress can spend this money without having to pay for it;

ü Every dime of this spending will be passed off to our children and grandchildren to pay for;

ü Over his eight years in the Senate, he has watched the national debt skyrocket 60 percent — from $5.6 trillion in 1999, to 9 trillion today;

ü Running the credit card for today’s needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of the U.S. Congress;

ü This is well above what even the president said he needs to fund the Department of Homeland Security;

ü The American people will see through this charade and realize Congress is pulling a fast one on them.

Please see below for the full statement from Sen. Voinovich:

Statement of Senator George V. Voinovich

Amendment No. 2480 to H.R. 2648, the Fiscal Year 2008 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill

July 26, 2007

Mr. President – As a senior member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and former Chairman and now Ranking Member of its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for the last eight years, I rise today to speak against the proposal to allocate an additional $3 billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security.

First, I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we must secure our border and provide the resources to do it. Had it not been for the fact that the previous Administration and former Congresses failed to provide the money needed for border security, we would not have the illegal immigration problem now facing our country.

That being said, Mr. President, this Administration has gotten religion and in the past several years has taken seriously the need to secure our borders. The President has recommended the funding necessary to get the job done.

Let me remind my colleagues that the Department’s overall budget has grown more than 150 percent since the Department’s creation merging 22 disparate agencies; while total homeland security spending has more than tripled since 2001. Of that total, border security and immigration enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department’s annual spending.

Since 2001, Congress has more than doubled funding for border security, from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.4 billion in fiscal year 2007. Including the $14.9 million recommended by the Appropriations Committee, this figure would jump to a more than 220 percent increase in border security spending since 2001.

Through the Secure Border Initiative, a comprehensive and multi-year strategic plan funded by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security is making substantial progress. I’d like to take a moment to share with you the achievements to date:

The number of border patrol agents has already been increased by nearly 40 percent, from about 9,700 in 2001 to 13,360 today. Congress has appropriated funds to hire a total of 2500 new agents this year, bringing the anticipated FY07 year end total to 14,819 agents. The FY08 budget we are considering would provide funds for an additional 3,000 border patrol agents, bringing the FY08 year end total to nearly 18,000 border patrol agents By the end of fiscal year 2008, we will have doubled the size of the border patrol since 2001.
As we continue to ramp up the number of border patrol agents, 6,000 National Guard personnel have been deployed to the Southwest border as part of Operation Jumpstart. These personnel continue to assist Customs and Border Protection’s efforts to secure the border.
The Department of Homeland Security has already gained effective control of 380 miles on the southwest border, plans to achieve effective control of 642 miles by the end of calendar year 2008; and has a strategic plan in place to gain control over the entire southwest border by 2013.
The federal government has effectively ended the practice of “catch and release”through a combination of tough enforcement and increased detention capacity.
We have more than doubled the number of immigration investigators.
The federal government has increased detention bed space by 46 percent.

We would all like to see these efforts move more quickly, but the reality is that it takes time to build fences, it takes time to build radar towers, and it takes time to hire and train quality border patrol agents. The executive branch has made clear that border security is a high priority and has developed a strategic plan to accomplish these goals as quickly as realistically possible.

Today, while the Senate engages in debate, Customs and Border Protectorate agents will apprehend roughly 2,617 people crossing illegally into the United States . Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel will house approximately 19,729 aliens in ICE detention facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will train more than 3,500 federal officers and agents. These daily statistics are further evidence that progress is being made.

I recall the February 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when Secretary Chertoff presented his budget request for fiscal year 2008. The Secretary asked for $13 billion to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement.

In justifying the Administration’s request, I can assure you that Secretary Chertoff was quite clear that he took very seriously his responsibility to secure the border. His testimony detailed the progress he had made, while outlining the Department’s multi-year strategic plan for continued improvements. In recognition of the challenge, the Secretary acknowledged that we still had a long way to go to objectively say to the American people that the border is secure. The amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the base bill ensures these goals will be met.

The Appropriations Committee reviewed the Department’s budget request and in its wisdom decided that the President may not have provided ample resources to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, the Appropriations Committee recommended $1.4 billion above the President’s request for border security and immigration enforcement, at a total of $14.9 billion, which is a 10% increase over FY07. The additional $3 billion under consideration would represent a nearly 25% increase in spending for border security and immigration enforcement over FY07.

I’m confident that in addition to believing more money was needed for the Department, the Appropriations Committee wanted to send a signal to the American people that we have heard their cry to secure the border.

The Department of Homeland Security requested $35.5 billion for fiscal year 2008, but this bill provides $37.6 billion, more than $2.2 billion above what the Department says it needs. But now, the Senate is proposing to increase that amount by yet another $3 billion, so that the total budget authority would surpass $40 billion. Some Senators claim that this is OK because that $3 billion has been designated “emergency spending,”as if using the emergency label is like waving a magic wand so that it doesn’t actually cost us anything. Well, that’s not true. At the end of the day, this amendment will increase the national debt by $3 billion, regardless of what label you put on it.

I might add that the President said he would veto this bill because it includes an “irresponsible and excessive level of spending.”Irresponsible and excessive – words we in Congress disregard too often. Obviously from his perspective, the $35.5 billion in net budget authority for fiscal year 2008 that Secretary Chertoff requested from Congress was what he felt was needed to fund the Department of Homeland Security and continue the efforts to secure the border. I know the President wants to assure the American people that he has moved with urgency to secure the border before he leaves office. Border security will indeed be part of this President’s legacy.

In the simplest of terms, the federal government continues to spend more than it brings in, and both the amendment and the underlying bill continue that practice. Over my eight years in the United States Senate, I have watched the national debt skyrocket 60% – from $5.6 Trillion in 1999, to 9 Trillion today. No one talks about the national debt anymore. But running the credit card for today’s needs and leaving the bill for future generations should not be the policy of the U.S. Congress. It represents a recklessness that threatens our economic security, our competitiveness in the global marketplace, and our future quality of life. If we decide we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something – and I support adequately funding border security – then we need to either raise more revenue or cut other spending to pay for it. Simply adding it to the national debt makes our country less secure in the long run.

How does continuing to borrow and spend make us less secure? Today, 55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign creditors – mostly foreign central banks. That’s up from 35 percent just five years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the Wall Street Journal. And who are these foreign creditors? According to the Treasury Department, the largest foreign holders of U.S. debt are Japan, China , and the oil-exporting countries known as OPEC. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that hold our debt do not control our future.

So why are we taking the fiscally irresponsible act that will add to our unbalanced budget and national debt? I am glad that the Administration and Congress have placed the needed focus on this important priority, but I want to ensure that we do not go too far in simply throwing money at this problem; money that cannot be effectively spent in fiscal year 2008 – which begins in October.

This money is not needed in light of the money the Appropriations Committee has recommended, including the $2.2 billion in additional spending over which the President has threatened a veto. The Department is already spending one-third of its budget on border security and immigration enforcement – a clear reflection of its priorities.

Next year, the Senate will review the President’s budget request and the Appropriations Committee will recommend funding levels. If next year, we determine that more needs to be spent to continue to improve border security and enforcement, fine. But let’s not simply toss an additional $3 billion out the window for fiscal year 2008.

I have the deepest respect for my colleagues, but I respectfully disagree on appropriating an additional $3 billion dollars in emergency spending. They know and I know that the sole reason for appropriating these funds would be to convince the American people that Congress cares about securing the border — even though we know this additional spending exceeds what can possibly be spent in the 2008 fiscal year.

The question I ask is: How dumb do they think the American people are? Don’t they realize that the American people will see through this charade and realize we are pulling a fast one on them?

How cynical can we be? The American people want us to work harder and smarter and do more with less and will be very angry that we are simply throwing money at a problem in a manner designed to make them feel good in the short-term. This is the type of game playing that has caused our approval ratings to slump to all-time lows.

When something comes along that we decide we must spend more money on – and border security could very well be one of those things – then we need to be prepared to pay for that additional spending by either bringing in more revenues or cutting other spending. I ask my colleagues not to support this fiscally irresponsible act that will surely diminish our credibility with the American people.

Not sure hat that means, but the reason I ask is because he’s usually a level headed guy who thinks things out. I don’t always agree with him, but I’ve spoken with him privately before and he seems to be a good person.

Did your senator ever have any reason to begin with???

God help me- I wonder what was his reason?