Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2007 -- (House of Representatives - May 25, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2007 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill provides just over $32 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, that is $1.8 billion above the current year, providing ample resources to fund the Department's operations in 2007.
After 3 years, the Department of Homeland Security has made enormous progress, but much work remains. The past year has been challenging. We have seen military-like incursions at the border, learned of potential vulnerabilities within port security and witnessed a massive failure in our Nation's preparedness and response during Hurricane Katrina. It has not been an easy year.
I have watched the Department tackle these challenges, and have been forthcoming in both my criticisms and praise, and they deserve both. Now, in its fourth year of existence, DHS is still struggling to merge its 22 legacy agencies.
Basic business systems are not yet established. And there is a constant shuffling of responsibilities and positions. From one day to the next, it is hard to determine who is in charge of what effort. On top of the mundane job of simply managing a large bureaucracy of over 180,000 employees, the Department is often focused on managing the crisis of the day. Part of this is necessary. Katrina's aftermath certainly required the attention of DHS leadership.
But I do not think the Department should lose sight of its long range goals and diverse legacy missions, to deal exclusively with the latest crisis. Nor, do I think that we as a Congress can afford to be so caught up in today's crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability and aggressive oversight within the Department's operations.
The President's budget put a strong emphasis on two areas, borders and immigration security, and nuclear detection. These are certainly homeland security priorities which I support. But increases in these areas came at the expense of everything else, resulting in reduced funding for first responders, port security and legacy agencies such as the Secret Service.
The bill before you shifts some of these resources and provides a balance among all of the Homeland Security priorities. It gives the Department the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our Nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Since September 11, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland security, including $116.9 billion for the Department itself. This does not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
For the past 3 years, we have provided funds to get the Department up and running. But this year marks a turning point for the Department. It is 3 years old. It is already up and running. We now expect results. No longer will we tolerate excuses and delays due to reorganizations, personnel shortages and poor financial management. Those days are over. We need to have confidence that this money is making a difference and that as a Nation we are safer and better prepared.
The bill includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance. To eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, the bill fences funds until certain actions are performed. In fact, a total of $1.3 billion is withheld until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans, and better financial data throughout the Department.
The bill also balances funding across all programs, not just a select few. But there are some caveats. We give money to the Department, but we also require results. For port security, cargo security and container security, we include $4.185 billion, a significant sum of money, but not without strings.
There are stringent performance requirements, such as doubling the amount of cargo inspected, 100 percent screening of all cargo and the establishment of minimum security standards for all cargo containers.
It also requires that DHS double the amount of cargo screened for radiation. These requirements are in line with the recently considered SAFE Port Act, which overwhelming passed this House on May 4.
For border security and immigration enforcement, the bill is also generous. We provide $19.6 billion, including almost $4 billion for the Secure Border Initiative. Again, these funds do not come without strings. Strategic and expenditure plans must be submitted for this effort. Unless the Department can show us exactly what we are buying, we will not fund it. Since 1995, spending on border security has quadrupled from $5.1 billion to over $17.9 billion.
And the number of Border Patrol agents has more than doubled from 5,000 to 12,319. However, during this same period, the number of illegal immigrants has jumped from 5 million to an estimated 12 million people. The policy of more money and no results is no longer in effect.
We will not fund programs with false expectations. The American taxpayer deserves more. We learned many lessons, Mr. Chairman, from Hurricane Katrina. The Department has taken a number of steps to prepare for the start of the 2006 Hurricane season on June 1, including improvements to communications, logistics management, victim registration and debris removal.
However, much work remains. And we provide $493 million to build FEMA's operational capabilities, including 200 new staff to improve incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal.
The bill includes $3.2 billion for our first responders. This is in addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to be spent, moneys from previous years. Here, too, we require results. And we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first responders.
Since September 11, we have given the first responders, we have provided $37.4 billion. The question is, are they better trained? Are they better prepared? Are they better equipped? We do not know the answer to that, but we should. The bill includes a provision requiring DHS to develop a preparedness strategy and to measure the performance of first responders.
The bill provides $6.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration and the air marshals, including $497 million for explosive detection systems, and $55 million for air cargo security. It also continues to cap the number of screeners at 45,000, ensuring that TSA will not rely exclusively on people to secure aviation but rather use smart technologies to screen for explosives and other contraband.
We must get out of the cycle of simply giving more money for people when technology in many cases provides a better answer. The bill includes $500 million for the domestic nuclear detection office. Much work has been done in this area over the past year, and the office has made significant progress in the areas of detection technologies and coordinating Federal efforts. This work deserves our continued support.
Finally, I would like to point out that the bill includes $1.3 billion for the Secret Service. I continue to believe the administration sometimes ignores the resource requirements of that agency. Despite dramatic increases in their workload for both protection and investigations, dollars have not been forthcoming.
This is a good example of where I think the administration is not paying enough attention to legacy missions, because they are so focused on bigger, more visible challenges.
This legislation, Mr. Chairman, supports our most critical Homeland Security priorities, keeps the Department on track to produce results and continues the committee's tradition of strict accountability. The recommendations in this bill reflect a balance among programs and operations, and I urge my colleagues to support the measure.
Mr. Chairman, this is the last year that my distinguished colleague, Mr. Sabo, will be serving in the U.S. House. He has chosen to retire to his home in Minnesota. I want to pay him the highest compliment that I can. He has been an able soldier. He has been a good work mate on this subcommittee. A good part of this bill is his handiwork. He is easy to work with. He reminds me a lot of that old adage that still water runs deep. He does not yell and scream. And yet he is extremely competent.
So I wish him well in his next life. I want him to know that we have enjoyed working with him. He has done a great service for his country. And we want to thank him for his distinguished service.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments, especially about the staff. We would not be here obviously without the hard work that they have put into this bill. You and I are just sort of front people for the real work that goes on behind the scenes by staff.
So we do have, I think, the best staff in the business on both sides of the aisle. I join you in complimenting the staff. You may notice that all of the staff is wearing some form of purple in their clothing at some point in time. And there is a reason for that.
Purple is the favorite color of Michelle Mrdeza, who as we all know is retiring after this year from her labors. And so we are paying tribute to Michelle with purple. We wish Michelle well in her next life as well.
She has rendered tremendous service to her country. In trying to stand up this brand-new Department, the biggest reorganization in the government at least since 1948, in standing up this Department it has been real labor, toils and snares all along the way and they continue until this today. But Michelle and the staff of the subcommittee on both sides have just been marvelous in this labor of love of trying to stand up this huge agency, that we owe them more than we can ever tell them about. But that goes for the ranking member, too.
He has been a marvelous help-mate as we struggled along trying to find our way through a thicket to try to stand up this brand-new Department. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman for his efforts to work with our subcommittee and commend him for his leadership in the Committee on Homeland Security. I also appreciate the opportunity to work with the gentleman on legislative provisions contained in the homeland security bill.
As this bill moves forward towards conference, I want to assure the gentleman that I am committed to retaining the key oversight provisions included in this bill. I also look forward to working with the gentleman to ensure that measures consistent with the legislative agenda of the Committee on Homeland Security, particularly in the areas of border, immigration and port security, emergency preparedness and chemical site security. I thank the gentleman.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Texas, and I share his concerns and am committed to improving our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I know the needs of Laredo are great, but I also know that if we do not address the issue of border security comprehensively, we will continue to throw money at a problem without making measurable gains.
As I have said many times, if our approach is only to build a 20-foot fence, all we end up doing is increasing the demand for 21-foot ladders. We have to have a plan for addressing this very complex and challenging issue.
I will continue to work with the gentleman on his concerns and push the department to plan its work and work its plan.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the language in the Homeland Security Appropriations report is intended to support, not change or contradict, the SAFE Port Act's requirements and controls pertaining to third party validators. I share my colleague's concern that C-TPAT is only as good as its participants are credible. We must ensure that all C-TPAT members are validated to have a program that provides real security. That is why our bill aligns with the SAFE Port Act by requiring the validation of all certified participants.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an awfully good case. The firefighters, of course, are extremely important in our Nation's efforts to defend itself, and this funding is vital. The gentleman and all the gentlemen make a good point, and I am prepared to accept the amendment. I would hope that we could conserve some time by doing that, but I thank the gentleman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about directing FEMA to predict over the next 20 years the effects of global warming on disasters and on FEMA's disaster relief services. FEMA's efforts should be focused on improving their capabilities to coordinate the Federal response to major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, neither the Department nor FEMA has the personnel nor the expertise to conduct such a study. Global warming is not a homeland security priority, and we should not expect FEMA to take on that tremendous responsibility.
So I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have grave concerns about directing FEMA to predict over the next 20 years the effects of global warming on disasters and on FEMA's disaster relief services. FEMA's efforts should be focused on improving their capabilities to coordinate the Federal response to major domestic disasters and emergencies of all types.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, neither the Department nor FEMA has the personnel nor the expertise to conduct such a study. Global warming is not a homeland security priority, and we should not expect FEMA to take on that tremendous responsibility.
So I urge Members to vote against this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
This bill provides significant resources for border security programs and is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.
I have grave concerns about the offsets contained in this amendment, offsets that decimate DHS's management. Taking $40 million, almost half of the Secretary's budget, would effectively shut down all planning and management from DHS leadership.
We have already reallocated $50 million from the Office of Under Secretary to operational agencies in the bill itself. A $61 million reduction to this office would stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development.
The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request and made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources.
What this amendment does is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight. We have held 11 hearings this year, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department and examining the most ominous threats facing the Nation. Almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical. But what we can't afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all others.
This bill provides significant border security resources, administers tough oversight, drives DHS to properly plan its work and improve our border security and immigration enforcement programs. I would hope that we would turn down this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, Citizen Corps was originally established to create the Citizens Preparedness Guidebook to give Americans guidance on how to prepare in their homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and public spaces. That work has been done.
Citizen Corps Councils are redundant. Work is being performed by State and local homeland security emergency preparedness offices. State offices are now robust enough after 9/11 to assess threats, help with community planning, evacuation and the like. These are government functions, not volunteer functions.
Citizen Corps functions are funded through other sources. Money comes to them from the Department of Justice through its Neighborhood Watch programs, its volunteers and police service programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services through its medical reserve program.
The subcommittee's 302(b) allocation could not accommodate all of the President's requests. The allocation of $32 billion does not fully adjust for the proposed increase in aviation passenger fees generating $1.3 billion in new revenue. Therefore, the committee has had to make some very tough choices, and this is one of them.
So I urge my colleagues to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Sabo, here we go again, another amendment to take money from the Office of Secretary and Executive Management and the Office of the Under Secretary for Management. As Mr. Sabo has pointed out earlier, if we keep cutting this office, there will not be any office.
The gentleman's amendment would want to increase funding for DNDO by $36 million. Our bill already provides, Mr. Chairman, a 59 percent increase for this office above the current level. The committee reduced funding for DNDO below the budget request because we had concerns with two specific programs, Surge, s-u-r-g-e and transformational research. The Surge program is an effort to purchase and restore equipment for use in times of need, a good idea for a more mature program.
But at this point, resources are needed for detectors on the front lines. Transformational Research, though trimmed, is still an increase of 50 percent over last year. I think we are doing the best we can do by this office at this time.
I oppose the amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Here we go again, cutting the Secretary and the Secretary for Management's office. If we keep doing this, we are not going to have an office. So I have grave concerns. The Office of the Secretary has already been reduced from 2006 by $30 million and the President's budget request by $2 million because of vacancies within the office. Further reductions would cut into critical funding to hire for the management and oversight of the Secure Border Initiative and to ensure that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., known as CFIUS, is adequately staffed to fully monitor possible foreign investment in critical infrastructure.
Border security and CFIUS issues span multiple agencies within the Department. Both of these issues have been in the news, of course, repeatedly, and the Department has been severely criticized for its lack of expertise and breadth of knowledge in these areas. If there is no one to work on the issues within the Office of the Secretary, I can assure you they will not be adequately addressed. Each DHS agency will work separately and independently from each other, keeping the stovepipes in place and ensuring that these criticisms continue.
I completely agree with the gentleman that the work being carried out by ICE's child exploitation unit, known as C3, is critical. This amendment would effectively double the operating budget of the C3. We have already increased funding for the center in our base bill. The bill we have presented to this body balances and reflects 5 months of careful oversight and review. The resources provided to C3, $5 million, are sufficient for the pending year. Additional funding is not necessary and could not be used.
So while I applaud the gentleman's priorities here, I find the increase not practical nor needed and ask our colleagues to reject this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the bill is currently balanced among the many competing homeland security priorities. This amendment significantly upsets that balance and undermines the Department's ability to effectively integrate its business systems.
The subcommittee carefully reviewed the President's request. We made significant modifications in order to ensure all mission areas had sufficient resources, including restoration of funds for all first responder grants by adding $500 million; restoration of funds for critical law enforcement functions, such as the CPB air and marine operations, and the Secret Service. We increased funding for critical explosive detection systems, significant funding and oversight for all aspects of border security and immigration reform.
What this amendment would do, Mr. Chairman, is unravel over 5 months of committee oversight, 11 hearings, digging deep into the resource requirements of the Department, facing the most ominous threats facing our Nation. The fact is, almost without exception, all of the programs funded in this bill are critical.
But what we cannot afford to do is fund one program at the expense of all of the others. I have grave concerns about a $50 million reduction in the Office of the Under Secretary For Management. We have talked about this all day today.
This office is already $8 million below funding for the current year. Assuming that the under secretary of management would not lay off its current personnel, key projects would have to be terminated in order to absorb the $50 million reduction in this office.
The under secretary for management is responsible for consolidating the 22 agencies that formed DHS in 2003, 180,000 employees, 18 different personnel and payroll systems, and numerous financial management systems. We have made some progress. More is needed.
But a $50 million reduction in this office would ensure that the under secretary would have to stop all work on the new personnel and payroll systems that are under development now.
Because of the size of this offset, the under secretary would be prevented from the hiring of 25 new procurement employees that we provided for him. The Department has been unable to receive a clean financial audit in the first 2 years of its existence and has repeatedly been in the news for poor procurement decisions and inadequate contract management.
The 25 new procurement employees were requested to help the Department receive a clean financial audit, get a better handle on the Department's contracts.
As far as the proposed increase for rail and transit security, the responsibility of securing our Nation's rail and mass transit systems is shared between the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of transportation, and in partnership with the public and private entities that own and operate the Nation's transit and rail systems.
Since DHS was created, $436 million has been appropriated for rail security. With $150 million in this bill, we will have provided a total of $603 million for rail security in the last 3 years.
The Department of Transportation, Mr. Chairman, has also provided funding for rail and transit security, averaging about $40 to $50 million per year. That funding, coupled with the funding that we provide, equals the total amount contained in the amendment of the gentleman. We are giving you the money from two different places. So I think we have satisfied the gentleman's financial request, and I would hope that we would oppose and vote against this amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/