Providing For Consideration of H.R. 2360, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2360, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006 -- (House of Representatives - May 17, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is one of the most important bills this or any Congress will consider. The protections provided in this bill are designed to make our country safer and to prevent future terrorist acts from taking place inside the United States.
The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has a difficult job. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), have done the best they could with the limited resources provided to them. While I do not agree with every choice they made, they certainly have my appreciation and gratitude for the job that they have done.
Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with the inadequate funding levels provided to the Appropriations Committee and with the continuing lack of accountability on the part of the Bush administration.
Now, let us not kid ourselves today. Congress must provide more funding to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We should not be forced to choose among funding port security, air security, border security and first responders. These distinct areas of security are all necessary parts of an integrated whole, and none of them should be short-changed. But the reality is that the reckless fiscal policies enacted by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are short-changing these and other important programs.
The tax cuts enacted over the last 5 years, coupled with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq, have drained the Federal Treasury to the point where even the fire grants that help our local fire departments prepare for the challenges they face every day will be severely cut in this bill.
Madam Speaker, that is the wrong choice. Many of my Republican friends will claim that the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee did the best they could with the allocation provided to them. That argument does not tell the whole truth. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to have it both ways. They want to criticize the low funding level in this bill, but they do not want to criticize the fiscal policies that have put us in the hole we are in today.
I know that my colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will describe this bill in more detail, but I want to highlight a few key programs.
Again, I am disappointed that this bill short-changes the fire grant program. It is one of the most successful programs in the c
country and it deserves to be increased and not cut.
I am also disappointed that this bill fails to live up to the promises made in the Intelligence Reform Act, enacted just in December. This bill short-changes border security, a key component of the 9/11 Commission report that was released last year.
The silver lining, thin as it is, Madam Speaker, is that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), were able to increase some funding for port security and transit security, and I am pleased that this bill also directs the Homeland Security Department to take concrete actions to protect this country.
For too long the administration has refused to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its actions, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), included provisions to make the Department accountable, and to provide the necessary oversight of the Department that has been lacking since its creation.
For example, this bill will impose penalties on the TSA Administrator if a requirement to increase the screening of air cargo is not implemented by the end of the fiscal year.
Madam Speaker, for too long the Bush administration has refused to provide general oversight on the Department of Homeland Security. This fits the pattern of a complete lack of accountability on the part of this administration. From the Education Department paying for its own propaganda with taxpayer funds, to the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the wasting of billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction contracts, this administration has made mistake after mistake after mistake.
Yet the Republican Congress does not want to do anything. Ask no question, demand no answers. Under this Republican leadership, the legislative branch of government is barely a twig. And so, Madam Speaker, we see the same things happening in the Department of Homeland Security. After publicly supporting a dramatic increase in the number of air marshals, the last two Bush budgets actually proposed cuts in funding for this important program.
Yesterday at the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) testified at length how the Coast Guard refuses to provide detailed plans for their Deepwater program and how the only way to get their attention is to withhold funds for this program. The same is true with the TSA's implementation of cargo screening measures and the deployment of explosive detection technologies at airports around the country.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this bill attempts finally to force some kind of accountability from the administration.
But, finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the rule today. I am pleased that it is an open rule. There have been 30 rules considered so far this year, and only three of those rules have been open. That is a batting average of 100, which will get you kicked off of any self-respecting Little League team. This is no way to run the people's House.
I am also disappointed with the way this rule jeopardizes much of the oversight language written by this bill, by exposing it to points of order. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) worked in a bipartisan way, as they should on an issue like this. This rule undercuts that bipartisanship.
Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has been this body's only source of oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year the Committee on Homeland Security was established. This committee just reported out its first authorization bill, which will be considered later this week.
Madam Speaker, it is not good policy to strip out the oversight language provided by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. SABO), because of a turf fight between two committees.
The Committee on Homeland Security will have a chance to bring forth its bill this week, and in the future I hope will provide the necessary oversight of the Department so that the Committee on Appropriations does not have to do two jobs; but we should not strike this language from this bill today just because the authorizing committee is unhappy. To do so would be irresponsible, and that is why the rule today should be defeated.
I would say to my friends, especially on the other side of the aisle, that it is a little bit frustrating to hear them talk about accountability on one hand and to support a rule that strips all the accountability from this bill.
We heard last night in the Committee on Rules of the fact that the Homeland Security Department has failed to provide Congress with required reports. We have heard about how deadlines have been missed, one after another. There needs to be accountability.
It is clear that this bill, if this rule passes, does not hold up to that standard of accountability, and I would like to think that the Members of Congress, since we had a role in creating this agency, would want to hold this committee accountable.
This is about our safety. This is about protecting the people of this country, and it is clear that we need to rein in the people over at the Department of Homeland Security.
So, Madam Speaker, I would say in closing that I have great respect for the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member SABO). I think they provided the Committee on Rules last night with a good bill that had some teeth in it, that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, but apparently, the Committee on Rules last night decided to just throw all that away.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Well, I appreciate my colleague from Texas talking about the fact this is a good bill. I agree with him. If it is such a good bill, why did the Committee on Rules allow half the bill to be stripped out?
During the testimony before the Committee on Rules, I think everybody, Democrat and Republican, on that committee praised the work of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman ROGERS) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member SABO) and talked about the fact that we do need to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I did not hear any dissension during the discussion in the Committee on Rules, and we also think it was a good bill.
Yet, here we are with a rule that would basically strip half of the most important provisions out of the bill. I do not think that is very responsible.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am not proud what we are doing here today. I mean, this is a sham; and I would say to the gentleman that the choice is clear: you either support the chairman and you either support holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable or you do not.
The way the Committee on Rules came up with this rule, which subjects all these very important provisions to points of order, makes it impossible to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I do not know how anybody who sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last night, all who agreed that what is going on in the Department of Homeland Security right now is very troubling, missing deadlines, not fulfilling requirements that this Congress has asked them to fulfill, I do not know how they could express solidarity with what the chairman and the ranking member were saying and then support a rule like this which undercuts all the accountability. I mean, this is wrong.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the committee.
Mr. SABO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I rise to oppose this rule. Funding government is about money, but it is also about how that money is used. This rule leaves unprotected virtually all of the good government provisions in the homeland security appropriations bill. This rule should be defeated.
What does it do? It leaves unprotected provisions that will increase the screening of air cargo trade on passenger and other aircraft.
If my colleagues think we are doing a good job of screening air cargo on passenger planes today, vote for this rule. If my colleagues think we should do what Congress has said in increasing screening on air cargo on passenger planes, then vote ``no'' on this rule.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will fund additional explosive detection equipment to check airline passengers and carry-on and checked bags.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision that will ensure that passenger prescreening programs are secure and that the public's vital information is protected.
This rule leaves unprotected provisions to protect taxpayers' dollars from being spent on programs that are not well planned and properly implemented.
This rule leaves unprotected $84 million for checking airline crews and passengers against the government's terrorist watch list. Is that really what we want to do?
This rule leaves unprotected $150 million for port security grants.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that those managing big government contracts have the proper training to do so. If you believe that the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Agency are managing contracts with quality and professional management, then vote for the rule. If you believe there are troubles, as indicated by report after report from the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office, then vote ``no'' on this rule.
This rule leaves unprotected a provision to ensure that only truly sensitive information is designated as such. The Department's current approach permits everyone at TSA to designate any document as sensitive and, therefore, not releasable to the public.
This rule does not allow the Obey amendment to fund the border security requirements of the Intelligence Reform Act and the REAL ID Act.
This rule should be defeated.
The subcommittee developed a responsible bill that provided proper and necessary Congressional oversight of critical homeland security programs. This rule allows that oversight to be decimated.
The fact is that the chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), did an outstanding job in developing a bill with proper oversight to present to the House. This rule would allow one-fourth, or a total of 14 pages of this bill, to be deleted.
We are here to conduct serious oversight of the Department of Homeland Security, not simply to rubber stamp the administration's budget request.
I oppose this rule and urge Members to vote against it.
http://thomas.loc.gov