[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 110 (Wednesday, September 15, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9277-S9279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to add my thoughts to the debate
on the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2005.
First, I want to preface my remarks by thanking the chairman and
ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for
working so diligently on this bill despite the constraints they have
faced. The fight against terrorism is our number one priority, and this
appropriations bill is a key component in that fight.
I also thank the Nation's first responders and the employees of the
Department of Homeland Security, DHS, who work daily to protect this
Nation. They are on the front lines of the fight against terrorism.
They are the ones who are called on to stop and respond to any future
attack upon our Nation. This bill includes important resources these
brave men and women need to perform their critical tasks.
The Senate bill is a vast improvement over the President's proposed
budget. It increases funding for such important things as port
security, FIRE Act grants, Federal air marshals, Emergency Management
Performance Grants, and the SAFER program. The Senate bill also
includes funding for research and development on next generation
explosive detection equipment, a priority identified by the 9/11
Commission. These are just a few examples of the many areas where the
Senate bill is far superior to the administration's request.
I was also pleased that the Senate bill includes a number of
amendments I sponsored. The Senate adopted my amendment requiring DHS
to create a strategic transportation security plan and to base future
transportation security budgets on that plan. This amendment will make
sure that taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively to
meet our Nation's most pressing transportation security needs, rather
than the current well-intended but ad hoc method of spending. This
amendment was based on one of the recommendations of the 9/11
Commission and, it is one of the first of the Commission's
recommendations to be adopted by the Senate.
The Senate also adopted my amendment to extend to the Department of
Homeland Security for fiscal year 2005 a provision included in the
fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations law that requires all
departments and agencies to report to Congress on purchases of foreign-
made goods. It is important that the government make every effort to
purchase American-made goods and that it explain to the public whenever
it fails to do so.
I was also pleased that the Senate adopted my amendment requiring the
Department of Homeland Security to report to Congress on its use of
data-mining in fiscal year 2005. This amendment will provide the
American people with critical information about the use of data-mining
technology and the way highly personal information, like credit
reports, travel records and other personal information, is obtained and
used by our government. Periodically, after millions of dollars have
been spent, we learn about a new data-mining program under development
by the Federal Government. This amendment will not stop any data-
mining. It simply requires the Department of Homeland Security to
report to Congress on any data-mining programs it is using or
developing and how these programs implicate the civil liberties and
privacy of all Americans. With complete information, the American
people will be able to make considered judgments about which programs
should and should not go forward.
Although this bill does a lot to help protect this Nation, including
providing much-needed resources for our first responders, it does not
do enough. I was disappointed that many good amendments were not
adopted by the Senate. For example, an amendment offered by Senator
Byrd, which I cosponsored, would have canceled purchases of oil to the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve and directed the $470 million in savings to
critical homeland security needs. Yet the Senate rejected this
amendment even though it would have helped to ease gas prices by
freeing more oil for the market and provided important funding for our
homeland security programs.
I also regret that this bill was so severely limited by a budget
allocation that did not provide adequate funding for homeland security,
choosing instead to make tax cuts its highest priority. That is why I
supported several amendments that would have added funding for critical
security needs. I want to point out to my colleagues that I do not take
lightly my decision to vote in favor of spending more money. Fiscal
responsibility is one of my highest priorities and I constantly look
for ways to limit government spending. I am honored that the Concord
Coalition and others have recognized me for my efforts in this regard.
Although fiscal responsibility remains one of my top priorities, it is
imperative that we provide the resources needed to combat terrorism.
I voted for this bill because it provides necessary funding. However,
our Nation's vulnerabilities demand more, and I will continue to work
to ensure that our vital homeland security needs are met.
intelligence reform
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last night, the Republican majority in
the Senate voted 49-45 to table an amendment I offered on intelligence
reform. The amendment would have required the President to give
Congress a copy of the 2001 report by the Scowcroft Commission on
intelligence reform. A classified annex could be provided if necessary.
[[Page S9278]]
In May 2001, before 9/11, President Bush ordered a review of U.S.
intelligence, and General Brent Scowcroft was named to lead a
commission to provide recommendations.
The report of the Scowcroft Commission was submitted to the White
House in December 2001, three months after 9/11, but it continues to be
classified, despite repeated requests from Congress to release it.
The 9/11 Commissioners had full access to the Scowcroft
recommendations as background for their work, and the final report from
the commission drew significantly from the recommendations.
Clearly, before we act on intelligence reform later this month,
Congress should also have the benefit of General Scowcroft's
recommendations.
But the Republican majority blocked it. They rallied behind the
President and argued that the report could not be provided because of
what they called ``executive privilege.'' Frankly, that's ridiculous.
The White House did not invoke executive privilege when they gave the
9/11 Commission full access to the Scowcroft report. They did not
invoke executive privilege when they allowed National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 Commission.
In these cases, the administration concluded that the benefit of
protecting the Nation's security outweighed other considerations about
privileged information. It should have done the same in this case.
Secretary Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he
could not see any reason why the Scowcroft report should not be
declassified. Our colleague Senator Roberts, chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, and our colleague Senator Warner, chairman of
the Armed Services Committee, have requested the report, but it still
has not been made available.
There is no compelling reason to keep this information classified.
What are the White House and the Republicans in the Senate trying to
protect? The Nation's security? Hardly. They are trying to protect
President Bush. Why? Because President Bush had General Scowcroft's
recommendations on intelligence reform for nearly 3 years and failed to
act on them.
Congress needs the report, and we deserve to have it before we act on
intelligence reform. We are talking about our national security, and
President Bush is playing politics by stonewalling us. It is already
clear that the administration sat on the Scowcroft recommendations for
3 years, and the Nation has obviously suffered because of it. Had the
reforms been implemented, we very well may have known that there were
no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Congress and the American people deserve to know how much greater
progress we could have made in the war on terrorism if President Bush
had not buried the Scowcroft recommendations and allowed them to
collect dust on a shelf at the White House.
vote explanation
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I was unavoidably detained
during rollcall vote No. 178 on Senate amendment No. 3632 to H.R. 4567,
the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill. If present I
would have voted ``aye,'' in favor of the motion to waive the Budget
Act. It would not have changed the outcome of the vote.
byrd amendment no. 3649
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor and to speak
in support of the amendment offered yesterday by my colleague from West
Virginia, Senator Byrd. As members of Congress, our most sacred duty is
protecting our fellow Americans. We do this in several ways, of course,
by supporting our troops at home and abroad, by our oversight of the
intelligence community, and now, with the creation of the Department of
Homeland Security, with an annual appropriation to fund the security
activities of the various agencies that make up DHS, and to fund grant
programs to states, localities, and private industry to make certain
that citizens of the United States are protected from terrorist
attacks, life-threatening accidents, and acts of God.
In the last 3 years I have sat down with hundreds of first responders
around my State of West Virginia, as well as local elected officials
and experts from my State's core industries, to discuss what they were
doing to protect West Virginians, and to hear from them directly where
they needed help from the Federal Government. I am sure that each of my
colleagues has had similar meetings. While I would not presume to know
specifically what was said at these meetings, I would be willing to
wager that no Member of Congress heard anything other than ``We have
huge unmet security needs and we need federal resources to make our
country safer.''
When we created the Department of Homeland Security, and when we
authorized many billions of dollars in additional funding to protect
this Nation, I am sure we convinced some people that we had learned the
harsh lessons of September 11. In fact, I think we have done well
making increased safety and security priority issues for the Federal
Government and for all Americans. Unfortunately, we have fallen short
on addressing these needs, and the Byrd amendment is a very good step
in the right direction. This amendment would not do everything that
needs to be done for Congress to be able to say we are delivering the
goods to our first responders, State and local officials, and to the
industries that make up our critical infrastructure, but it would be a
much-needed boost for all those trying to make America safer.
I commend Senator Byrd for making his usual strong, principled stand
on this matter. Let me be clear, too, that I do not believe the funding
levels in the underlying bill reflect any lack of understanding of the
scope of the problem on the part of our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle. The chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, my
friend, Senator Cochran, has done very well with the amount he was
given to distribute. The problem is, quite simply, that the
administration's past policy choices and the need to adequately support
our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have left Senator Cochran and his
fellow appropriators with too little to do this all-important job.
It is not a question, let me reiterate, of our Republican colleagues
or the President not wanting to see our Nation adequately protected. I
do question, I am sad to say, the idea that it is vitally important to
make unaffordable tax cuts permanent, but it is not more immediately
important to secure our chemical facilities, our railroads, our
electricity grid, or provide training and technical assistance to our
firefighters and emergency medical personnel.
I hope that my colleagues will see just how important this is. It
would be a tragedy beyond measure if we failed to do the right thing
when we had the chance, and only provided funding, for instance, to fix
the problem of interoperable radios after another tragedy where first
responders were at risk because they could not talk to each other.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate completed action of
the second of 13 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2005, the
Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
Although the Senate has not yet adopted a new concurrent resolution
on the budget, we did establish a discretionary spending allocation for
the Appropriations Committee in the recently enacted Department of
Defense appropriations bill. That allocation, and the subcommittee
allocations that were derived from it, enabled us to consider the
Homeland appropriations bill under the usual budget enforcement
protections.
During debate on the Homeland appropriations bill, a total of 10
budget points of order were raised against amendments that sought to
increase spending by an incredible $19.9 billion in 2005 alone. If
those amendments had been enacted and incorporated into the
discretionary spending baseline, their 10-year cost is a staggering
$220.2 billion. Including debt service costs, that number increases to
$285.3 billion.
I am happy to inform my colleagues that the Senate upheld all 10
budget points of order and rejected each one of these spending
increases.
Unfortunately, the Senate did adopt an amendment providing $2.98
billion in emergency spending for agriculture disaster assistance. I
opposed that amendment because it did not belong on this appropriations
bill, and it
[[Page S9279]]
should be paid for and not add to the deficit. I want my colleagues to
know that I will continue to seek to have this spending dropped from
the bill or offset with appropriate spending cuts.
I congratulate my good friend from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, who
managed the Homeland appropriations bill for using the Budget Act
successfully to control the spending in his bill. I look forward to
working with my colleagues on the remaining appropriations bills to
continue that success.
I ask unanimous consent that a table displaying the budget points of
order raised during consideration of the Department of Homeland
Security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2005 and their cost be
inserted in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
TEN-YEAR COST OF DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2005 HOMELAND
SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL DEFEATED BY BUDGET POINTS OF ORDER
[Budget authority, in billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amendment a PoO b 2005 2005-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3580--Schumer--Port security R&D grants.... 302(f) 0.2 1.7
3596--Murray--Port security................ 302(f) 0.3 3.3
3597--Byrd--Misc. homeland programs........ 302(f) 2.0 22.1
3604--Dodd--First responders............... 302(f) 15.8 175.2
3617--Lautenberg--Coast Guard.............. 302(f) 0.1 1.1
3624--Mikulski--Firefighter assistance 302(f) 0.2 1.7
grants....................................
3632--Clinton--High threat area funding 302(f) 0.6 6.9
increase..................................
3649--Byrd--TSA and SPR.................... 501(b) 0.0 0.5
3655--Schumer--Border security............. 302(f) 0.4 3.9
3656--Schumer--Rail security............... 302(f) 0.4 3.9
-------------------
Subtotal............................. ....... 19.9 220.2
Interest on amendments c................... ....... 0.0 65.2
-------------------
Total including interest............. ....... 19.9 285.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The increases in spending in several of these amendments may be for
very similar or identical purposes.
b 302(f): Amendment exceeded Homeland Security 302(b) allocation;
501(b): Amendment provided advance appropriations in an account not
identified for advance appropriations by the conference report on H.
Con. Res. 95, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year
2004.
c Approximated based on budget authority.
Source: Senate Budget Committee Republican Staff.
____________________