Department of Homeland Security Appropraitions Act, 2004 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, first, I wish to thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his cooperation in the development of this bill that is now before the Senate. His assistance and participation in the hearings, the review of the President's budget request, our meetings with administration officials to fully understand the priorities as they saw them, and, in many ways, his experience and judgment in helping guide the development of this bill were very essential to the success we had in getting it to this point. His support in getting it through the committee and subcommittee was essential and very important.

This amendment, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out, will add money for many different areas of spending in the legislation that we have presented. Of course, it is because there are many needs there. There are many ways we can allocate and spend resources to try to upgrade our capability of protecting our Nation's homeland. So there is no end to the list of ways we could spend additional funds.

What we have tried to do, though, is be guided by the limitations that have been imposed on the committee by the budget resolution. We have a limited amount of money to spend in this bill. In fact, the amount we have been allocated to spend is $1 billion more than the President's budget request that was submitted to Congress earlier. So this bill provides $29.326 billion. We have tried to allocate it among all the competing needs that we have come to understand through our review of the budget request and the information we have been able to obtain as to what our needs are and what the highest priorities are, and that is what this bill reflects: the judgment of the Appropriations Committee of the priorities that exist and how we can best use the amount of money that is allocated to this committee for this next fiscal year, keeping in mind that we have already appropriated funds in the year we are in now, fiscal year 2003.

We have also added a substantial amount of money for homeland security in the supplemental appropriations bill that was just recently passed by the Senate and signed by the President. Therefore, since this amendment proposes to add another $1.75 billion to the bill that is before us with no offsetting suggestion of where the money would come from, I will be constrained to make a point of order against the amendment because it provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's allocation in violation of the Budget Act. Before doing that, let me make a few observations about the Senator's comments on some specific provisions in the bill.

Facilities along the land borders, which the Senator discussed, are maintained under the General Services Administration, and funds for upgrading, maintaining, and replacing facilities are funded through the General Services Administration and the
appropriations bill that has that as part of its jurisdiction.

This committee does not have GSA jurisdiction. What we do have is the responsibility of trying to accommodate the deployment of facilities to implement the U.S. visitor and immigrant status indicator technology. This is a new program. It is to be deployed upon land ports of entry, and funds are included in the committee bill for that purpose.

In addition, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection has undertaken to hire additional inspectors to be deployed on these borders, to enforce the new rules and to better protect us from people who come across the border who may be a threat to the security of our homeland.

Our indications from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are that over 4,000 inspectors have been added to the workforce since September 11, 2001. That has increased coverage at these ports of entry by 25 percent. Over 2,600 inspectors are on the northern border, compared to about 1,600 prior to September 11. There are 613 Border Patrol agents who are assigned to the northern border compared to 368 before September 11. Commissioner Bonner says he plans to have 1,000 agents on the northern border by October of this year. So when the new agents who are funded in this bill are counted, are included, there will be over 11,600 Border Patrol agents in fiscal year 2004. That is funding already in this bill.

We added additional staffing in the wartime supplement. We put in the supplemental $75 million for additional northern border and maritime ports of entry personnel. This was in addition to the money that was previously appropriated for this fiscal year for new personnel. We also included $25 million to transfer Border Patrol agents to the northern border. It is an important new undertaking, and we are cooperating with the administration in trying to meet those needs.

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection can only hire so many people in any one year. This bill includes the maximum number of new border agents who can be absorbed in one year.

We also think it is important to preserve the Department's flexibility to assess its staffing needs nationwide. We should not come in and say they have to hire 1,000 more than they planned to hire this year. We have to leave to the good judgment of the administrators how they can absorb and find the qualified people to hire, how they can train them in their new duties and deploy them to the places where they can be used. I think it would be a mistake at this point for the Senate to try to superimpose our judgment about a detail of that kind.

We have the same goal. We are on the same team with this administration. We have to listen to the statements and suggestions they make to us about the funds they can use and what they need to do their job within the limits that we have.
We have to allocate the funds according to the priorities as we see them.

Up to this point in time, it is the judgment of the committee at least that the funding we have made available for border security agencies, for personnel to carry out the missions of the USA PATRIOT Act, which the Senator mentioned, and other authorizing legislation is funded in the bill to the extent that it is possible to be funded in the bill.

In the case of the Transportation Security Administration, the additional funding suggested in the amendment is $100 million for screening of air cargo. First, the authorizing committee assessed the needs for new authorities and how the responsibilities for screening air cargo would be changed to meet the new threats. Congress responded by passing the Air Cargo Security Improvement Act, S. 165. It authorizes the development and deployment of something called a known shipper database, strengthening security enforcement and compliance measures for indirect air carriers and implementing mandatory security programs for all cargo carriers.

The Transportation Security Administration has undertaken a comprehensive, strategic plan for air cargo security. It is based on threat assessment and risk management.

As I understand it, there are three elements to the approach of the Transportation Security Administration. They strengthen the current known shipper program to verify shipper legitimacy. They have developed a cargo prescreening and profiling system that targets shipments based on a set of guidelines to indicate which shipments may be suspicious. They have a targeted inspection system to identify suspicious cargo utilizing explosive detection systems, explosive trace detection, canine detection, and other approved methods for inspecting air cargo.

This comprehensive approach is consistent with the Department's approach in securing containers that cross our borders by all modes of transportation, and the funding that was requested in the President's bill has been respected. The bill we have before the Senate provides $60 million. Ironically, it is $30 million more than the President requested for this function.

The Transportation Security Administration, according to my understanding, can use this money. But this amendment that has been offered by the Senator from West Virginia would add an additional $100 million in addition to what is already in the bill. I am not sure the administration can use that and use it effectively.

The amendment has additional money for grants for public transit agencies, for enhancing security against chemical and biological threats. We already have $71 million for the Science and Technology Directorate to develop and deploy chemical, biological, and nuclear sensor networks throughout the country, including public transit facilities. That would duplicate and be over and above what is already being spent to try to make sure that we deploy the right kind of defenses to this kind of threat.

Again, I think it is important for us to work with the administration and say: Okay, we have so much money that has been allocated to us to spend for homeland security. How can we best spend that money right now? How much do they need this year? What can they use? What are the highest priorities? Where do we need to spend the money first?

The amendment the Senator has offered also increases port security grants by $460 million, as he pointed out. We already have $150 million in the bill for port security grants, and this is in addition to $365 million provided in 2002 and 2003.

Of the $365 million already provided by the Congress, only $260 million has been obligated by the administration. So think about this: We have a proposal to add $460 million to an account where the money is still there and has not been obligated that has previously been appropriated. How much can be spent is something that has to be taken into account as well, not how much we can appropriate. That is not going to be a measure of the success of this bill or whether or not it has been thoughtfully expended to protect our security. We have to make sure it can be used and that it can be used thoughtfully, consistent with a plan that has been developed by the administration.

The Transportation Security Administration can only obligate about $150 million a year because assessments of ports have to be conducted, they have to be given some kind of priority, and then an application process by the ports for the funds has to be analyzed, assessed, and careful decisions need to be made. It cannot be just a rush to apply for a grant: Hey, they have a new fund in Washington. If you are a port director, if you get your application in now and put pressure on the administration, you may get some funds.

Will it be consistent with the overall national plan? Will it be targeted where the threats are the most imminent and most troublesome, where the money really needs to be spent? Are other agencies going to be able to take up the slack in helping to deal with threats that are known to exist in our ports?

There is a capacity only to spend so much money at one time. That is the point. The rush to spend money can put the agency in disarray, can give a false sense of security to the people in the country, saying, look, we spent $460 million in addition to what had already been appropriated. But that may not actually help improve our security.

There is no doubt there will be a need for these funds later. There will be a need to increase security at our ports over and above what we are doing in this fiscal year or next fiscal year—and not just in ports but in all modes of transportation. But we need to take a measured, thoughtful approach, and weigh the funding provided for the security of our Nation's homeland security needs. That is what we tried to do, take a balanced approach and make an assessment based on limitations we have and the realities we face.

There is a proposal in this amendment to add $70 million to the Coast Guard operating expenses account to increase the total funding of the Coast Guard. The bill already provides $4.719 billion for Coast Guard operating expenses. This is $12 million more than the President has asked for operating expenses, excluding environmental compliance and restoration, and reserve training, which are funded separately.

Included in the bill for acquisition, construction, and improvements is the amount of $1.035 billion which is $238 million above the President's budget request.

Funding to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) was not requested in the President's budget because that Act had not been passed until after the President's budget was prepared. No request was made for funding to implement MTSA in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental either. We know funding for the implementation of the MTSA is a priority for the Coast Guard. If we had additional funds available, we would agree to increased funding in fiscal year 2004.
But the bill has been very generous to the Coast Guard. We believe funding for the implementation of MTSA should be included in next year's budget request by the President.

The Office for Domestic Preparedness is targeted in this amendment with a funding increase. Mr. President, $729.5 million is provided in this amendment to increase funding for grants to State and local governments.

One of the first calls I made when I realized it was going to be my obligation to chair this subcommittee was to Warren Rudman, our former colleague from New Hampshire, who has been, with Gary Hart, part of a study to assess our homeland security needs. They had published reports and made some presentations in New York, Council on Foreign Relations, and other places.

One of the things I remember former Senator Rudman suggesting to me is, it is impossible to know precisely what is needed and how much it will cost. That is something I have kept in mind.

The fact is, this is not an exact science. We have to use our judgment, make choices, understand that we cannot do
everything at once. What we are trying to do is maintain a base level of preparedness through this program.

The Department is going to be better able to assess true needs once the States have had a chance to submit their updated homeland security strategies. We cannot just assume right now the States can identify all of the areas where they need to spend the money, which local governments continue to have needs, and which ones ought to be funded first.

In my judgment, we run the risk of being irresponsible if we increase funding over and above an amount that can logically and systematically be provided through the grant program to State and local governments.

We will have provided through the funds recommended in this bill almost $9 billion through the Office for Domestic Preparedness and the firefighters assistance grants since September 11. A lot of money has been spent already. In addition to those expenditures and the funding in this bill, the Senator suggests we ought to spend another $729.5 million.

We are suggesting the funds appropriated in this bill, in this account, for this fiscal year, are a responsible level of funding for first responders, given the other needs and other demands that come under the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security.

The amendment also suggests we earmark $80 million for information analysis and infrastructure assessment, a directorate, to conduct assessments for chemical facilities. I am impressed with the concerns reflected in this suggestion. We do not have funding made available to individual industries involved in the chemical business to make these assessments. I am not enough of an expert in that business to know the assessments that have already been made and the security arrangements that many of these businesses and industries already have. One thing we need to keep in mind is that self-interest has motivated business and industries, and anyone who owns a business or a home should do what they can to protect themselves, to be sure their workers are protected, to be sure their families are protected. We all feel that obligation. It is not like everyone has been assuming they had no responsibilities for self-protection.

Businesses and industries have done a great deal, invested huge sums of money, to protect their own assets.

The suggestion is we need to give them more money to do some more analysis, to do some more assessments.

There may be a need for additional critical infrastructure assessment; however, this bill already provides $293.9 million for key asset identification, field assessments of critical infrastructures, and key asset protection implementation to help guide and support the development of protective measures to improve the security of industrial facilities and assets.

Of the amount provided for critical infrastructures, $199.1 million is made available for critical infrastructure and vulnerability assessments of the highest priority infrastructures and assets. But we need the benefit of the advice of the administration, those who are in charge of the programs, to tell us what those are. This amendment that is offered by my friend from West Virginia says it is the chemical industry. That is the only earmark in this part of the bill—$80 million for chemical facilities. There may be other facilities that are more vulnerable or that would cause more damage and displacement of American businesses than the chemical facilities would if they were under a threat of terrorist attack.

The priorities that have to be made and assigned have to be based on a combination of factors: threat, vulnerability, and risk analysis. And we have to leave that up to the administration. I don't feel competent to make that kind of decision. I don't know of any Senator, if this amendment were to be voted on this afternoon, who could just walk in here and decide should that be an earmark or should it not. But it is folded into this big amendment and we are asked to decide whether to target $80 million for just these kinds of facilities. Who is to know whether that is a good decision or not, if they have not been through the hearings, they have not had the opportunity to assess the other options?

So I think it is an unfair choice that we present to other Senators, to have them make that decision right now. Why can't the administration make that decision? I think they are better suited to make that decision than we are right now. We have to work with them and not make prejudgments.

The prioritization is going to be based on a lot of factors. There are 14 critical infrastructure areas—including the chemical sector—5 key asset categories that further break down into about 99 distinct segments, all of which must be considered based on changing threat assessments. So this is not necessarily an effective way to improve our Nation's security, just to earmark money for one particular kind of industry requiring a specific amount of funds to be spent. Why not $180 million?
Why not just $40 million? Where does $80 million come from? I don't know. Who knows?

So without the corresponding analysis that helps advise the Senate, it is a mistake for us to be asked to make this kind of choice.

We are telling the terrorist organizations, aren't we, that we are going to spend the money in this sector? We are going to target this sector and emphasize it and make it a high priority, but not the others? Is that a good way to make decisions in this area or should we let the administration and the infrastructure protection experts decide where the threats really are? What does the intelligence show as to where the threats are? These need to be taken into account.

This amendment, adding $1.75 billion to the bill, violates the Budget Act because it does not offset the spending, it exceeds the subcommittee's allocation that is given to us, and at the appropriate time I will be constrained to make a point of order against the amendment.