Homeland Security Appropriations: House Floor Speech

Statement

Homeland Security Appropriations: House Floor Speech

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

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 of concern: 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 and amounting to a 13.6% increase above FY07. And this does not even account for the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been added to DHS's budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month. By comparison, the President's FY 08 request would give DHS a 7.2% increase. I think the President's recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous. The public is demanding accountability, and I do not think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more government do not equal more security. Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the DHS budget to a more than responsible 7.2% increase, and am hopeful my colleagues will support this effort.

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 unfunded mandate, I am concerned the bill presupposes ICE can simply re-direct or "re-prioritize" limited resources from other, vital enforcement missions. These enforcement activities involve many duties - duties that include tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, preventing child pornography, preventing the export of sensitive national security technology, and taking down employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse. From which of these critical missions should ICE re-direct resources to comb our nation's jails and correctional facilities? So, to suggest that ICE should focus its resources almost exclusively on incarcerated illegal aliens, at the expense of everything else is as short-sighted as it is potentially dangerous. There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions, and I'm concerned this bill falls short in this regard. I'm hopeful that the Chairman will work with me to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy as we move forward.

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. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred. While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet, 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 enacted in 2002. That cap was established 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 absolutely no discipline in its planning, hiring, and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to hire an army of screeners, some 70,000 strong, while advancements in research and technology were largely ignored. By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus its decision making. They began to place better, cheaper and more effective technologies and machines in the airports, and started to slowly clear out the more expensive, man-power intensive trace detection systems. The screener cap is working, and without it, I am fearful that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply adding more people - a very short-sighted and costly solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap later today.

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' duties. These agencies are certainly happy to get these grant funds and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk reduction to that of revenue sharing - 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, particularly when you consider that there is still nearly $5 billion in unspent first responder grant dollars lying in the pipeline.

In conclusion, 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 Chairman Price's efforts in keeping the Department on track to produce results, and continuing the Subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability. I look forward to working with him to resolve our differences as we move this bill forward.

Source