[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 67 (Thursday, May 19, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1025-E1026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 17, 2005

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2360) making 
     appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes:

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2360, the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. As a member 
of the Homeland Security Subcommittee, it has been an honor to work 
with Chairman Hal Rogers and our Ranking Member, Martin Sabo, in 
drafting this bill. I would like to commend them both, for their 
efforts to address our Nation's security needs despite the severe 
budget constraints forced upon them.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill provides $30.85 billion for operations and 
activities of the Department of Homeland Security, DHS, in fiscal year 
2006, an increase of $1.37 billion above the fiscal year 2005 enacted 
levels. Although the bill does not fully fund many initiatives critical 
to securing the homeland, I am pleased that this legislation does 
provide adequate funding for several programs of importance to urban 
communities such as my own in Los Angeles.
  For instance, State and local emergency managers will be happy to 
learn that although the President continues to zero out the funding in 
his budget request for the Emergency Management Performance Grants, the 
committee has appropriated $180 million for this grant program. 
Congress has rightly called this program ``the backbone of the Nation's 
emergency management system.'' In California, emergency managers use 
these grants to develop plans to help prepare our residents for 
disasters such as earthquakes, fires, floods, or terrorist attacks.
  The bill also provides $750 million for State-wide formula grants 
which are distributed on a per capita basis to first responders. The 
current population-based formula is under review by the Homeland 
Security Authorization Committee which is determining whether or not 
funds should go to States based solely on population. In lieu of any 
changes by the authorizing committee to the formula, this bill directs 
DHS to maintain a minimum allocation of .75 percent per State and to 
allocate the rest based on threats and need versus population. I 
strongly agree that targeting funds based on the assessment of actual 
vulnerability is a much more effective use of limited resources than 
population alone. Furthermore, the committee recognizes that DHS must 
still establish a national preparedness goal which will help our States 
develop appropriate homeland security funding goals.

  Our firefighters were among the first to respond to the tragic events 
of September 11th, and they will likely be the first to respond in the 
event of a future attack. The fire grant program helps local fire 
departments deal with these and other needs by allocating funds for 
equipment and staff. Unfortunately, the President proposed cutting 
funding for these programs by $215 million, or 30 percent. This bill 
restores most of the president's cuts by providing $600 million for 
fire grants and $50 million for firefighter staffing grants. This is 
critical funding because only 13 percent of fire departments are 
prepared to respond to a hazardous material incident and an estimated 
57,000 firefighter's lack personal protective clothing for a chemical 
or biological attack. I would hope that by the time this bill goes to 
the President, these programs will be fully funded at last year's level 
of $715 million at a minimum.
  In addition, the bill strengthens the committee's direction that port 
security grants, for the 55 ports of national significance, should be 
based on vulnerability assessments. This means that limited resources 
for port grants will be used where they are needed most. While we are 
dedicating $150 million to both the port and the transit security 
programs, the Administration had proposed no funding for these critical 
programs. This is inexcusable particularly when the Coast Guard and the 
transit industry have indicated $7 billion and $6 billion in security 
needs in their respective industries to improve security. I am also 
pleased that Congress dedicated $50 million for the security of 
chemical plants.
  I thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo for including in the 
Homeland Security report several items I requested to address serious 
issues raised during subcommittee hearings with representatives of the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  For example, the report expresses deep concern about reports that 
children, even as young as nursing infants, apprehended by Immigration 
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are being separated from their parents 
and placed in shelters operated by the Department of Health and Human 
Services while parents are held in separate jail-like facilities. 
The Committee's report language directs DHS to release families or use 
alternatives to detention whenever possible, and when detention of 
family units is necessary, the Committee directs DHS to use appropriate 
detention space to house them together.

  The report also addresses the need to expand the use of Legal 
Orientation Programs to additional ICE detention centers in the 
country. Legal Orientation Programs consist of legal presentations made 
by nongovernmental

[[Page E1026]]

agencies to all persons in immigration detention prior to their first 
hearing before an immigration judge. This program saves on the costs of 
immigration detention, makes Immigration Court more efficient, and 
facilitates access to justice for detained immigrants in removal 
proceedings. Immigrants are better prepared to accept their removal 
earlier in the immigration hearing process when they have learned from 
organizations not affiliated with the government that they have 
exhausted their immigration relief options.
  I am also pleased that the report contains language I requested to 
improve the quality assurance standards at our ports of entry. The 
Committee urges Customs and Border Protection to consider expanding the 
use of videotape systems to record interactions between potential 
asylum seekers and border patrol agents at our ports of entry. These 
tapes should be reviewed and retained for a sufficient period of time 
to ensure that asylum seekers are treated equally and with fairness at 
any one of our ports of entry.
  The bill once again includes language I drafted to prevent the 
Department of Homeland Security from moving forward with the 
unnecessary and potentially dangerous privatization of key immigration 
officers at the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. These 
officers are responsible for handling classified information used to 
prevent fraud and the exploitation of our immigration laws. I am 
thankful that this inherently governmental work will continue to remain 
the responsibility of trained and experienced federal employees 
directly accountable to the Department and not to the bottom line of a 
private company.
  The report also includes language which I requested to address 
concerns about Customs and Border Protection employees who were 
required to participate in a six-day twelve week basic training, but 
who were not fully compensated for all of their days of work. The 
report directs the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to 
report on the number of employees who were not compensated and also on 
the steps the department is taking to resolve the problem.

  Finally, the report directs the Transportation Security 
Administration to report on the status of their efforts to issue 
regulations for basic security training for flight attendants. I am 
pleased we are keeping TSA accountable to this task, and I look forward 
to the timely completion of this report.
  However, Mr. Chairman, despite the fact that this Homeland Security 
Appropriations bill addresses several of the issues I raised in 
hearings and increases funding levels in certain accounts, I am 
concerned that this year's bill continues the practice of underfunding 
several homeland security recommendations as well as the initiatives 
and programs mandated by Congress to ensure our Nation's security.
  As one of the largest cities and metropolitan areas in the country, 
Los Angeles is considered to be one of the most ``at risk'' areas for 
terrorist attacks. For this reason, I am disappointed that this bill 
provides only a slight increase of $15 million over last year's funding 
for Urban Area Security Initiative grants compared to the $405 million 
increase requested in the President's budget. Protecting our most 
vulnerable cities and towns is extremely costly and causes tremendous 
hardship on local governments. We must ensure that they receive the 
adequate funding to keep our most vulnerable cities secure.
  I am further disappointed that the bill appropriates $5 million for a 
program which allows States and local jurisdictions to enter into a 
Memo of Understanding, MOU, with Homeland Security to train local 
police to enforce limited immigration functions. I believe our limited 
resources should instead be directed toward identifying and deporting 
terrorist elements in our country.
  In addition, although both the Patriot Act of 2001 and the 
Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 called for increases in specific areas 
such as border agents, customs and immigration inspectors, immigration 
investigators, as well as for additional detention beds, this bill 
fails to meet the established border enforcement benchmarks--by 500 
border patrol agents (25 percent short), 600 immigration investigators 
(75 percent short), and 4,000 detention beds (50 percent short).

  I am also concerned with the decrease in funding that the Bureau of 
Citizenship and Immigration Services has continued to receive since the 
creation of the Department of Homeland Security. This bureau is charged 
with processing thousands of work authorization and citizenship 
applications for immigrants in our country and yet this bill includes 
only $120 million for this important agency. This decrease in resources 
simply does not make sense given that over the last 4 years, the Bureau 
of Citizenship and Immigration Services continuously fails to meet its 
6 month goal for processing citizenship applications. These backlogs 
send the wrong message to our Nation's immigrants who are eager to 
become full participants in our society, but must wait years before 
their citizenship applications can be reviewed and processed. Mr. 
Chairman, I hope that before we send this bill to the President we will 
appropriate the funds necessary to once and for all resolve the backlog 
problems which have plagued this agency for years.
  I am disappointed that this bill's report expresses support for 
expedited removal and recommends its expansion. Expedited removal means 
that Customs and Border Protection officers can immediately deport 
individuals they do not believe have a true case for asylum. This year, 
a federally funded study issued by the U.S. Commission on International 
Religious Freedom on the impact of expedited removal on asylum seekers 
found that expedited removal procedures are not being applied evenly 
across the country. The report found that where an asylum seeker enters 
our country, the country they come from, and which officer conducts 
their brief interview, impacts the decision on whether an individual is 
allowed to see an asylum officer or is deported without further review. 
Before expedited removal is expanded, as the bill's report recommends, 
Congress should require the Department of Homeland Security to provide 
evidence that Customs and Border Protection is making progress in 
resolving the current and serious problems associated with expedited 
removal.
  Lastly, I am concerned by the Administration's seeming indifference 
toward protecting critical infrastructure, such as ports, transit and 
railroad facilities, and chemical plants. Not only have critical 
assessments not been completed, but the Administration has consistently 
underfunded or unfunded important infrastructure security programs.
  For example, although Congress continues to fund aviation security 
and provides $30 million for air cargo screening, the Administration 
has continued to leave the aviation system's vulnerabilities exposed. 
Despite Congress' direction to increase the percentage of screened air 
cargo on passenger aircraft, the Transportation Security Administration 
has not fully implemented the law.
  Additionally, the Administration has proposed no new funding to 
install inline baggage screening machines beyond the currently approved 
eight airports, and Congress has again decided to only fund the 
existing programs at 75 percent, rather than the contractually agreed 
to amount of 90 percent. This creates an additional burden that our 
cash-strapped communities can ill-afford.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I will support this bill to provide 
critical resources to help make our country safer. However, fully 
addressing these and other critical national security concerns requires 
resources that the Administration simply did not propose and which the 
Republican majority did not provide in this bill. While this bill is an 
improvement over the Administration's request, critical homeland 
security needs will still go unmet.

                          ____________________