Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR DEFENSE, THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR, AND HURRICANE RECOVERY, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - March 16, 2006)

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment, well-intentioned as it is, is absolute overkill. In total, this amendment would add $1.225 billion for a variety of programs in the Department of Homeland Security, which is nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriations. I may agree with him on some of the needs, but most of what he is asking for should be dealt with in regular order, not in an emergency supplemental bill.

I recognize the importance of many of the appropriations contained in the amendment, but we have already substantially increased funding, Mr. Chairman, for Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, and FEMA over the last 3 years.

This supplemental is about the Global War on Terror and Gulf Coast recovery, not about the regular budgets of these Departments, of these agencies, which we are dealing with right now as we appropriate for 2007.

Now, in Customs and Border Protection, in this bill already we increase funding by $17.7 million. We have aggressively supported radiation detection and cargo inspection technology, appropriating some $700 million over the last three years. An additional $400 million in this amendment, well-intended, is completely arbitrary and unneeded. There is no rationale for this number. The new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office is developing new technologies, even as I speak, and a framework for their deployment.

The gentleman also increases Customs and Border protection, international port security programs, the Container Security Initiative, and the Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism by $300 million. Since 2004, these programs have received, at the hands of the Congress, over $430 million. This has fully funded the Container Security Initiative which will expand in 58 foreign ports by the end of fiscal 2007. Through those 58 ports come 90 percent of the containers that come to this country and C-TPAT has expanded to 5,636 certified trade partners that send us container vessels every day.

Mr. Chairman, we simply cannot grow these programs any faster. Money is not the problem. An expansion of this program is more about obtaining diplomatic clearances than money. These countries simply will not take more of our personnel until we negotiate diplomatically with them.

As for the Coast Guard operating expenses, in this bill the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Lewis, has already included an additional $14.3 million. The gentleman's amendment would add another $125 million. Mr. Chairman, over the last 5 years, we have doubled funding for the Coast Guard's operating expenses, doubled, from $2.8 billion in fiscal 2001 to $5.5 billion in the current year, and while we have increased their responsibilities, they have funding in their base and in this supplemental for operating expenses sufficient to carry out their duties for the remainder of the year, including overhauling equipment, additional fuel, port security, inspections and the like. So the Coast Guard is taken care of. In fact, they have roughly half of their operating expenses for this fiscal year laying there waiting to be spent. So they do not need the extra funds.

Now then, on FEMA, we include in this bill already increases to FEMA of $70 million in the supplemental emergency bill. The gentleman would increase their funding for administrative and regional operations by $300 million, but it is unclear how that $300 million figure is derived. The President requested $70 million for emergency communications, primarily for Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, although some of the funds are also targeted to Texas and Florida.

The Sabo amendment adds $300 million for "three other locations." We do not know where those locations are or why it is an emergency that they be equipped, and there is a huge difference in the cost estimates. Seventy million will take care of the three principal States of Katrina, but he is asking $300 million for these three other locations. Wherever they are, I do not know, and what they need the money for we still do not know.

The $70 million that Chairman Lewis included in the bill that is before us fully prepares the Gulf Coast for the upcoming hurricane season, putting in place the necessary communications infrastructure for warning and communicating with the public during these natural disasters. It may be appropriate to position the technology in other locations, but there is no reason to consider an expansion of this effort as part of this emergency appropriations bill. These are decisions that can and will be considered as part of the regular appropriations cycle, which we are having hearings on right now.

The gentleman seeks to add $100 million for preparedness activities at FEMA. We also increase in preparedness this bill by $10 million. The gentleman states we are not spending enough on simulation exercises; but in fiscal 2006, the National Exercise Program is funded at $52 million. That supports local, State, and national exercises.

The gentleman also seeks to restart a program called Project Impact, funded in the previous administration to simulate predisaster mitigation efforts. That program has not been funded for 5 years. Nothing is known about it, we do not know that it works, and yet we are asked to plop down another big chunk of money. Who will administer it? what will it do? and so on--we do not know.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is not a matter of more money. It is a matter of spending the money that we already have stashed away in these programs wisely, based on a sound strategy and a rationale to improve our homeland security. While the gentleman's amendment is well-intended, it is overkill.

This supplemental is focused on immediate needs, not budgetary items for next year. Many of the areas being addressed in this amendment are funded in this supplemental, not just to the arbitrary levels being proposed by the gentleman's amendment. Throwing huge sums of money at these programs is not a responsible way to conduct our Nation's business.

I urge a defeat of this amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I urge a "no" vote on this amendment. First, this amendment throws money at a problem where money is not the problem. There are literally billions of dollars that we have appropriated in the pipeline for the various grant programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including grant monies for port security. In fact, the Department, in the next couple of weeks will be releasing port security applications for various ports around the country to apply for funding. Money is in the pipeline waiting to be spent.

As I have said before, the Department will be in 58 foreign ports the end of the fiscal year 2007. Ninety percent, nine out of 10 of the containers coming into the country come through those 58 ports around the world. We are there x-raying the containers, manually searching containers, classifying and targeting containers, finding those that are susceptible to suspicion and then searching them.

It is not perfect, obviously. But money is not the problem. We simply cannot send more agents into those countries than they will take, unless we can diplomatically make arrangements. But that is a job of the State Department, not DHS.

Second, this is an emergency supplemental bill. We can deal with most of the problems that the gentleman outlines in his amendment in the regular process. And in the regular process, I will probably support a number of the proposals that he is bringing forth in this emergency bill. But this is not the time or the place.

So I would urge a "no" vote. These dollars are emergency spending. They are not offset. And the gentleman is asking us to add another $1.225 billion of nonoffset spending. I would hope the body would recognize that, reject this amendment, and let us deal with these issues in the regular process of the 2007 bill.

I urge a "no" vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I know the motivation of the offerer of the amendment, and I sympathize with his general premise. However, I am obligated to speak against the amendment because the amendment would eliminate the money for FEMA. Under this proposal, FEMA would run out of money in May. The $9.55 billion in the bill for the operations in the Gulf Coast would be eliminated. Housing assistance would stop; debris removal would stop. There would be no emergency communications in place for the upcoming hurricane season, which is only two months away. And $13.5 million for the Inspector General would be cut, almost ensuring fraud, waste and abuse of the $35 billion in supplemental funds we have appropriated so far for the Gulf Coast.

So I would urge a "no" vote. Although I understand the gentleman's motivation to try to separate out the disaster funding from the military funding, that would ruin the disaster assistance for the Gulf Coast. I urge a "no" vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is just not necessary. FEMA has money and the authorization to go ahead and buy election equipment already, and they are already doing it. This amendment would actually earmark Disaster Relief Funds, which we have never done before. We don't earmark. This is not an account out of which you earmark monies for things you like. These are Disaster Relief Funds that are administered by the government where it is needed.

Now, the Stafford Act authorizes the use of Federal money to repair or replace damaged public infrastructure. That is what it is for, including election equipment. FEMA has already spent over $1.7 million on election equipment in Louisiana and Mississippi. Specifically, Louisiana has received $1,200,100 from FEMA to replace polling booths, computers, voting machines, office supplies, and storage facilities. Mississippi has received $724,000 from FEMA for voting machines, equipment, and election commission furniture. So FEMA is already doing it. I don't know why we need to earmark monies, which I oppose in general; but it is unnecessary here because it is already being done.

There is plenty of money in FEMA's account to replace the election equipment. They are already doing it. So I don't see the need for us to pass this sort of an amendment and set a precedent, Mr. Chairman, for earmarking out of the Disaster Relief Fund for somebody's whim on the floor. We have passed the Stafford Act. That is what governs how FEMA monies are being spent. This would be a violation, in my judgment, of the principle of the Stafford Act.

FEMA is in the process of helping remove debris from the Gulf Coast. Roads are still closed in the area. As has been described innumerable times, it is an absolute mess down there. And while election equipment is important, it is just simply, in my judgment, premature to purchase this equipment, first of all, when there are no structures in place to house the equipment and no roads open to deliver it. When the time is right, FEMA has both the authority and the money to assist with the upcoming election and the equipment requirements. There is simply no need for this amendment and no need to earmark out of disaster funds.

Including the funds in this bill, we will have given $44.5 billion to the Disaster Relief Fund in supplemental appropriations during 2005 and 2006. That is a huge sum. But it reflects the commitment of this body to helping rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast region.

Now is the time for sound management of this money. Arbitrarily carving out specific amounts from the disaster fund would open a floodgate seemingly without end for many, many needs.

We recognize and support the need to repair election facilities. It is critical that we allow those affected by Hurricane Katrina to participate in the most important civic duty, and that is voting. With this bill, the disaster relief monies involved in the bill are in place to do just that and are being spent for that purpose already. So I would urge a rejection of this amendment.

http://thomas.loc.gov/