Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota…
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, first off I would like to compliment the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for their hard work on this bill.
The bill's top line total is $1.3 billion, or 4 percent above the President's request, and $1.7 billion, nearly 6 percent above this year's enacted level. The bill achieves these numbers without conceding to the President's request to increase the Federal security surcharge on airline tickets by $3.
Mr. Chairman, I want to strongly state my support for the efforts of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) in this bill to ensure accountability, which is long overdue. I understand that the top management at DHS
has had a very difficult management task on their plate from day 1, pulling together all of these different agencies and making sure that they play and work well together.
I believe, however, that these challenges are cause for more, not less oversight on the part of the Congress. After September 11, Congress voted to grant the Department of Homeland Security a broad scope of authorities. This means that if managed properly, the Department is uniquely positioned to protect us from terrorism.
On the other hand, if managed improperly, it is also uniquely positioned to do great harm. For instance, since the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act, I, along with many others in this body, have spoken out constantly on the need for our antiterrorist agencies to safeguard our constitutional rights and civil liberties.
Mr Chairman, I believe that if in the process of getting the bad guys we step and throw away the Constitution, eventually it is the terrorists who would have won the battle. Congress is the most essential body for protecting Americans from these types of excesses and missteps by the Department.
Furthermore, the American people have also charged us with ensuring that every dollar that the government spends, especially on something like homeland security, is spent in a way that yields the most benefit. The most significant way that we in Congress carry out this vital task is by controlling the way the money is spent, and that is what the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) has spoken to for so many times with the support of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).
We cannot just open up this new part of our funding, if you will, in this Congress and dole out all of these dollars without having some accountability. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and especially the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) well understand that this is not our personal money, this is the taxpayers' dollars, and the taxpayers complain a lot about how we spend the money. This time we have a new department, new agency, new spending sources, new funding levels, and we can from day 1 try to pull the strings in and have some control.
So I would hope that today, during this debate, those who may be officially or personally offended about how some things happen around here understand that there is a greater task; that is, the protection of the people and the protection of the taxpayer.
First off, I would like to commend Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for their hard work on this bill.
The bill's top line total is $1.3 billion (4 percent) above the president's request and $1.7 billion (nearly 6 percent) above this year's enacted level.
The bill achieves these numbers without conceding to the President's request to increase the federal security surcharge on airline tickets by $3.
I am strongly supportive of Chairman Rogers' efforts in this bill to ensure accountability at DHS, which is long overdue.
I understand that the top management of DHS has had a difficult management task on their plate from day one: pulling together all these agencies and making sure that they play well together.
I believe, however, that these challenges are cause for more--not less--oversight on the part of this Congress.
After Sept. 11, Congress voted to grant the Department of Homeland Security a broad scope of authorities. This means that, if managed properly, the Department is uniquely positioned to protect us from terrorism. On the other hand, if managed improperly, it is also uniquely positioned to do great harm.
For instance, since the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, I, along with many others in this body, have spoken out constantly on the need for our antiterrorist agencies to safeguard our Constitutional rights and civil liberties.
Congress is the most essential body for protecting Americans from these types of excesses and missteps by the Department.
Furthermore, the American people have also charged us with ensuring that every dollar that the government spends--especially on something like Homeland Security--is spent in a way that yields the most benefit.
The most significant way that we in Congress carry out this vital task is by controlling the way money is spent--and, if necessary, denying the Administration requests if they are unable or unwilling to respond to our concerns.
Chairman Rogers recognized this point when he built accountability into this bill.
I would also like to take a moment to highlight some of the funding levels in the bill that I believe are inadequate.
I understand that when it comes to something like our safety and security from terrorist attacks, any final amount of funding means that tough choices must be made.
One important area that suffers a severe cut in this bill, however, is funding to our state and local programs, which the bill reduces by 11 percent from this year.
The Administration and many on our committee have noted that this cut is in response to the sluggish pace at which the Department and states move these funds out to local agencies, so that they can be spent.
But I don't believe that slashing funding for these essential programs is the right approach to making them work better.
These state and local governments are on the front lines in our struggle against terrorism, and still have many needs that are going unmet.
Most notably, fire grants, which, as the Ranking Member notes, are the most successful grant program at DHS are reduced by $115 million from current levels--16 percent--even as we are finding that our firefighters are still largely unprepared to respond to catastrophic terrorist acts.
In addition, State homeland security formula grants, local law enforcement terrorism prevention grants, and urban area security grants, all of which are especially important to my district and other high risk areas, are reduced by 14 percent.
As the bill moves to Conference, I am hopeful that we can find a way to address some of these deficiencies, and I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member on these issues.
In closing, I believe overall that this is a good start to tackling many of the problems that have plagued the Department from its inception, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.