Author: mopress

By Rep. John Carter (R-TX)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6271)

I am concerned, and I wish to express the concern that in the appropriations process this year there is a lot that is going to be done in the dark. In this particular bill, it is a very small item as compared to what is coming down the road at us, but there is $16 million for bridges which we won’t know exactly how that is going to be spent for this House to examine it, but it will be “air dropped” in in the conference committee. That is an indicator of what we are looking at as we deal with Member-initiated spending with the nickname of “earmarks” in the future.

At present, the plan is to set aside the money but not tell us how to spend it, and, oh, by the way vote for it. But I think in the last election the American people told us that they wanted sunlight on this process. They wanted to be able to see how we spend our money, including they wanted our names put on the things that were individually requested. In fact, the Republican House passed such a rule, to put the names on every earmark.

Yet we see in a very small part in this bill, and much expanded in the bills to follow, that there is going to be no sunshine on this process. In fact, it is going to be inside closed doors in the conference committee where there is really not a whole lot this House can do about it.

With increased nonemergency spending of $81.4 billion, these are issues that American people want to know about it. They want their elected Representatives to take a look at it and be able to figure out how the money is being spent. We debated this process the last session of Congress. We made it important to us as individual Members. We talked about it and discussed it and voted on it.

Now, all of a sudden, we have a process that has gone behind closed doors in secrecy, and as we vote these things out, as Members of Congress we are voting a bill which has a fund set-aside which we are not told how that fund is going to be spent. We are told it could be published over the break. This is inexcusable.

By Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6272)

[The DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008] appropriates a record amount of spending, $36.3 billion. What we tried to do in the committee, and I want to commend Mr. Rogers and Mr. Price, was starting out asking what are the risk issues that we really need to face in the Nation. This whole emphasis has been essentially an antiterrorism effort, when, in reality, in creating this huge, huge bureaucracy and moving the Department of Agriculture and everybody else into it, what we have found from a lot of experts is that you really have to deal with issues such as the first responders would be the same for a terrorist activity as they would be for a natural disaster, and that we really have to base our decisions on risk-based management.

It was no more clear than in a place that we are just sort of throwing money at, which is the >border between Mexico and the United States. In testimony, we found that there are more terrorist incidents–in fact, there have been none on the Mexican-U.S. border, but there have been several on the U.S.-Canadian border where we have very little security whatsoever. So if you were acting just on risk management, you would put more assets on the Canadian border than on the Mexican border. But the emphasis here isn’t about homeland security; it is more about immigration.

By Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6272-H6273)

I also remain concerned about the ability of DHS to recruit and train an additional 3,000 new Border Patrol agents funded by the bill. Given attrition rates, this means that Border Patrol will need to hire and train approximately 4,400 agents a year. While I support putting more boots on the ground as quickly as possible, I am convinced that the current approach DHS is using cannot meet this goal.

I am also concerned that it continues to cost $187,000 to recruit, train and deploy just one Border Patrol agent. The Subcommittee on Management Investigations and Oversight plans to hold another hearing on Border Patrol agent training costs in its capacity next Tuesday. It is my hope that the findings from this hearing will be considered by the House and Senate conferees on this bill to improve the way DHS recruits and trains Border Patrol agents.

Note: $187,000 x 4,400 = $822.8 million

By Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-IN)
Congressional Record
June 12, 2007 (H6273)

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out a tremendous irony that is happening here in the Capitol Building today. In the other body [the US Senate], the President of the United States has come over to lobby for an immigration bill and the other body is considering this. Yet we are debating a homeland security bill where we have had Republicans come down to the floor who say it’s too expensive, that it’s spending too much money, but if you took this times four on an annual basis for 5 years, you couldn’t begin to meet the standards that are in the Senate bill.

We have people like Mr. Rogers of Kentucky pointing out that we’re mandating Homeland Security to go check everybody in these detention centers but without any money for it. Unless your intention is complete and pure amnesty, how would you do that if you don’t fund programs?

Mr. Rogers of Alabama pointed out that we don’t have a realistic program for training Border Patrol, that it’s costing too much. Yeah. Well, how are we going to ramp this up two or three times if we don’t have money to do the Border Patrol people?

[The DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008] is an advertisement, a walking billboard for the gaping holes in the bill of the [US Senate].

On pages 12 and 13 of this bill, and I agree with all these criticisms as we worked through our subcommittee, it says that they have to define activities, milestones and costs of implementing the program for the Secure Border Initiative. You mean they don’t have that? You mean they’re promising that we’re going to have a secure border and they don’t even have the cost estimates? Yes, that’s correct.

Number 2 here on page 12 says, demonstrate how the activities will further the objectives of it and have a multi-year strategic plan. You mean they don’t have a multi-year strategic plan? No, they don’t.

Identify funding and staffing. You mean they haven’t done that?

Describe how the plan addresses security needs at the northern border. They don’t even have the date set for when they’re going to develop a plan for the northern border, yet we’re debating a bill in the other body that says that we’re supposedly securing our border?

On page 37, it says, complete the schedule for the full implementation of a biometric exit program or certification that such program is not possible within 5 years. Well, I’ve talked to US-VISIT. They haven’t even been talked to about it. Of course they can’t meet 5 years. We’re talking 10 years minimum.

What are they debating over in the other body? When the American public looks at what’s happening in the Capitol Building on the same day and we’re passing an appropriations bill that has theoretically looking at a biometric exit maybe in the next 5 years and the other body is acting like it’s done, what’s going on here?

On page 59, there’s a direct challenge to the question of our matching system. Now, the other day we had somebody with TB who had the warning on the screen, one we actually caught and we released him. But what we have is a question of are our lists even valid and there are restrictions on that.

Other parts of the bill are actually going to delay the implementation of the fence by saying that, for example, 75 percent of the land in Arizona is actually either government-owned, Native-American-owned, it’s a wilderness area, it’s a range; and it says we have to work out each of those things before we can put any fence in.

Another part of the bill says we have to work with State and local governments in their areas. How in the world can the other body be making these promises when this bill points out the gaping holes?