Opening Statement Subcommittee on Homeland Security FY 2009 Full Committee Mark-up
Friday, June 27, 2008

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  I want to begin my comments by sincerely thanking you for listening to my concerns and accommodating the minority’s interests, where possible.  I also want to thank you for your commitment to this bill’s traditions of professionalism, bipartisanship, and regular order.

• In fact, I want to especially state my appreciation for your commitment to take this bill to the floor under an open rule, as is the tradition for Appropriations bills.

The Chairman has already discussed most of the details, so I’ll refrain from repeating them.  And while the Chairman has endeavored to “improve” the bill to address many of my concerns, there are some other areas that I think can be further “improved”.

First, fiscal responsibility.

The 302(b) allocation of $39.9 billion – $2.3 billion above the President’s request – is a very generous allocation, to say the least.  It’s an allocation I’m sure OMB would agree is too generous, and one that provides no real fiscal discipline to our budgetary process.

While I certainly support the underlying functions in this bill, I have always maintained that homeland security funding should be distributed in a fiscally reasonable and responsible way.  Homeland security is not a problem that can be simply solved by more money and more government.

Secondly, the bill is riddled with special interest provisions that do nothing to help protect our homeland.

• Like the permanent Davis-Bacon requirements on all contracts and grants, forever, that have absolutely no business being included in this bill.

Third, I am very worried about DHS’s ability to sustain vital operations along our borders and coastlines in the face of skyrocketing energy costs.

• Whether it’s the Border Patrol driving along the Southwest Border or the Coast Guard patrolling the Caribbean, rising fuel costs are having a major impact.
• The bill fails to address what are known energy cost shortfalls that have emerged in the months since the budget was submitted to Congress.
• This is an issue that affects all critical governmental functions and one this Committee should examine as it considers all of the FY 09 spending bills.

Fourth, I fear that under the guise of “oversight”, this bill might be heading down a troubling and perhaps perilous road.

• The bill restricts all funding for operations of several intelligence and data analysis programs in the Department’s intelligence office, CBP, and the Coast Guard.  While I gather the purpose of these withholdings is to force privacy reviews—reviews I certainly support—it is unclear what the impact of restricting all funds from these seemingly critical functions will be.  How much risk are we asking the American people to endure by tying up these funds until these reviews are completed?
• If we learned anything from 9/11, it is that timely information sharing and intelligence are among the keys to preventing terrorist attacks.
• This Committee must strive to find the proper balance of oversight with funding.  After all, what we have always demanded from this bill is results.

And finally, I am extremely concerned about the bill’s restrictions on funds for border security.

While my record clearly shows I support robust oversight, I am apprehensive about the length and complexity of the strings being placed on the funds for border security fencing and technology.

• The onerous consultation requirements and the detailed analysis hurdles are so pervasive, it seems like the bill is determined to actually stop the border fence in its tracks—a concern that is substantiated by the fact that six months after enactment of last year’s bill, which withheld $650 million, only $175 million has been released by the majority…and that was only two days ago!  And this year’s restrictions are even more stringent than last.
• It is claimed that the border security oversight contained in this FY 09 bill is “no different” than what has been done in previous Appropriations bills.
• Let me set the record straight:  planning requirements and the withholding of funds are essential tools for Committee oversight, but they should never be used to completely block the implementation of the law.
• DHS has met last year’s requirements—yet now, this Subcommittee refuses to uphold their end of the bargain and is demanding additional requirements beyond the law to satisfy the agendas of local activists and environmentalists.  Thereby, overturning the judgment and planning of the operational experts.  And that is based upon last year’s “weaker” oversight restrictions.
• This is clearly oversight gone overboard and it makes the case obvious for removing the more taxing requirements of the FY 09 bill.
• The need for border security is evident—the public is demanding it.
• The Congress mandated it.
• We’ve appropriated the money for it.
• The Subcommittee has all but stopped it.
• CBP has submitted their plan and demonstrated substantial consultation with all affected communities and hundreds of local stakeholders.
• Enough is enough.  CBP needs this money to meet Congress’ mandate.
• It is time get past the delays, build the fence, and secure our porous borders.

Therefore, today, I will offer an amendment to replace the FY 09 onerous restrictions with more reasonable oversight—oversight that will not only foster accountability, but also security.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good.  There are many provisions that I agree with.  While it is my current intention to support this bill, I will continue to voice my reservations and work with the Chairman on items I think can be improved upon.  And I am hopeful that some of those improvements can be made here today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.