Homeland Security Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2008

Homeland Security Appropriations: Fiscal Year 2008

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have already discussed in detail what is in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, so I'll refrain from repeating that.

Let me start by commending the Chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill - his first as the Chairman of this important Subcommittee. I must also recognize the Chairman's continuation of this Subcommittee's bi-partisan tradition, as well as state how much I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to listen to our concerns and accommodate them as much as possible. I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific items in the bill: First, fiscal responsibility.

The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is $36.25 billion - $2.1 billion above the President's request. This is on top of an additional $1.05 billion just approved in the supplemental. The FY 08 mark amounts to a 13.6% increase above FY 07. The President's FY 08 request would give DHS a 7.2% increase. Now, I think that is sufficient, even generous. I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. Therefore, I will offer an amendment to limit the DHS budget to a more than responsible 7.2% increase.

And when I use the term "responsible", I am also stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility across the country - over 5,000 facilities - at least once per month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings. Such direction, while perhaps a laudable goal, is both difficult to implement and unfunded. Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to carry out this mandate, I am concerned the bill presupposes ICE can simply re-direct resources from vital, criminal investigations and fugitive operations to meet this unfunded mandate. So, I will continue to work with the Chairman to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy.

I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our nation's border, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure on the Southwest Border. But the bill contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department performs certain actions. At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added together they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems essential to our homeland security. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred.

As I stated in the Subcommittee Mark-Up, I appreciate the Chairman's willingness to hear my concerns about these restrictions, and I am pleased to see the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet; but I am absolutely committed to securing our borders as rapidly as possible and will work with the Chairman to ensure DHS accomplishes this critical task on time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution of the Department's border security mission.

In addition, the bill removes the cap on the number of TSA screeners that was placed on TSA before there was a Department of Homeland Security. That cap was erected for very good reasons - reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and I installed this cap because TSA was demonstrating no discipline in its planning, hiring, and use of technology. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness - the Homeland Security portion of local first responders. These cash-strapped agencies are certainly happy to get theses grant funds and now even expect it. So what was a straightforward grant program has turned into a revenue sharing program - something it never was intended to be. Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs - as this bill does - what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government is expecting. Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations that I agree with, and I applaud your efforts in keeping the Department on track to produce results, and continuing the Subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to working with you as we move this bill through the legislative process.

Source