I am pleased to be here today to present the FY 2007 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

 

The bill before us provides $32.08 billion in discretionary funds for the upcoming fiscal year, $1.8 billion above fiscal year 2006 and – after adjusting for aviation passenger fees – $165 million below the President’s request.  While our allocation does not completely plug the $1.3 billion hole the President created by proposing a new passenger security fee – a fee we cannot agree to – our allocation gives us ample resources to fund the Department’s operations in FY 2007. 

 

After three years, the Department 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 forthright in both my criticisms and praise.  And they deserve both.  Now in its 4th year of existence, the Department 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 with 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 don’t 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 appropriators, can afford to be so caught up in today’s crisis that we fail to provide balance, stability or aggressive oversight within the Department’s operations. 

 

The President’s budget put a strong emphasis on two areas:  borders/immigration security and nuclear detection.  These are certainly homeland security priorities which I support.  However, 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 DHS the tools, assets and direction it needs to prepare our nation for both terrorist attacks and natural disasters. 

 

Since September 11th, we have provided $217.6 billion for homeland security, including $116.9 billion to this Department.  This does not include emergency appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.  For the past three years, we have provided funds to get the Department up and running.  But this year marks a turning point for the Department – it is four 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 before you includes a number of initiatives designed to compel the Department to develop strategies and milestones for performance.  To eliminate any ambiguity of Congressional intent, this mark fences funds until certain actions are performed – in fact, we withhold a total of $1.3 billion until we have strategic plans, expenditure plans and better financial data throughout the Department.

 

There are a number of specific initiatives included in the bill that I would like to highlight:

First, the mark holds the President accountable for the aviation passenger fee. For the 2nd year in a row, the President has funded increases to homeland security through an artificial increase in passenger fees.  This fee is not within our jurisdiction and it creates a big hole in terms of dollars.  As a result – and in order to send a message to the Administration that this fee is dead on arrival – the mark cuts $257 million of proposed increases associated with this fee. 

 

Second, the mark balances funding across all programs, providing DHS with the resources it needs to do its job but also requiring accountability and results.    

 

For port, cargo, and container security, the bill includes $4.185 billion – a significant sum of money but not without strings.  The bill includes stringent performance requirements – including doubling the amount of cargo inspected; 100% 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. 

           

For border security and immigration enforcement, the mark is also generous, providing $19.6 billion, including $3.98 billion for the Secure Border Initiative.  Again, these funds don’t come without strings – we require both strategic and expenditure plans for this effort.  Unless the Department can show us exactly what we’re buying, we won’t fund it.  Since 1995, spending on border security has increased tenfold, from $1.2 billion to over $12.7 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 to 11 million.  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 from Hurricane Katrina and DHS has taken a number of steps to prepare for the start of the 2006 hurricane season on June 1st – including improvements to communications, logistics management, victim registration and debris removal.  However, much work remains.  The mark includes a total of $493 million to build FEMA’s operational capabilities – providing 200 new staff and requiring improvements to incident and logistics management, evacuations and debris removal.  We also demand accountability in catastrophic planning and provide additional funds for first responder training and exercises. 

  

The bill includes $3.2 billion for first responders – this is in addition to the $5.1 billion that is still in the pipeline waiting to be spent.  Here too we require results and we put pressure on DHS to measure progress in preparing our first responders. Since September 11th, we have provided $37.4 billion for first responders – are they better trained, prepared and equipped?  We don’t 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 TSA and Air Marshals, including $497 million for explosive detection systems and $55 million for air cargo security.  It also continues to cap 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 provides a better answer.

 

The bill includes $500 million for the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office.  The subcommittee recently received a very compelling closed briefing on nuclear threats. DNDO is to be commended for its efforts to deploy new detection technologies and coordinate federal efforts.  Considering this office has accomplished so much in just over a year, I believe we are seeing the beginnings of a very robust nuclear detection program and I congratulate the Administration for their work in this area. 

 

Finally, I would point out that the mark includes $1.3 billion for the Secret Service.  I continue to believe the Administration is ignoring the resource requirements of this 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.