[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 121 (Thursday, July 26, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10055-S10058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I wanted to talk about a couple of 
amendments that I have to the Homeland Security appropriations bill 
today. First, I would like to bring up the matter of security itself 
and how it affects our ports. Certainly, it is unfortunate that we have 
to be here once again to talk about threats to our homeland, but that 
is the reality we face today.
  The amendment I am talking about now has been filed. It is amendment 
No. 2481. It will help us address some of the vulnerabilities and help 
secure the American people. This amendment, No. 2481, which I will 
bring up later today, prohibits the Department of Homeland Security 
from using any funds to remove items from the list of offenses that 
disqualifies individuals from receiving a transportation worker 
identification credential--what we call the TWIC card.
  Mr. President, we can spend all the money in the world screening 
cargo and hiring security personnel, but if someone working in our 
seaports looks the other way when something dangerous enters our 
country, all of our spending and all of our work is for nothing. 
Serious felons are prime targets for those trying to smuggle a nuclear 
device or a chemical weapon into our country, and we must close that 
security gap.
  My colleagues will no doubt recall that I have tried to address this 
issue two times in the past year, and both times my amendments received 
overwhelming support. Yet we have not yet seen a sufficient result from 
the effort to secure the American people's safety.
  Last fall, the Senate accepted an amendment I offered to the SAFE 
Port Act to close this dangerous loophole by codifying the Department 
of Homeland Security's rules banning serious felons from gaining access 
to the secure areas of our Nation's ports. In effect, it would have 
prevented these felons from obtaining this TWIC card. It was a 
commonsense amendment, and I suspect that is why it was included in the 
Senate's bill, without any objection from any Senator here. Let me 
repeat. It was included in the SAFE Port Act without objection.
  I also suspect that is why no Senator has come forward to this day to 
take credit for gutting the amendment when they went behind closed 
doors in a conference with the House. The amendment that left this body 
was a codification of disqualifying felonies, developed after an 
exhaustive process by the Department of Homeland Security, in 
consultation with the Departments of Justice and Transportation.
  The offenses listed are very similar to those that have worked well 
to protect our airports and hazardous materials shipments for years.
  Unfortunately, the provision that came back to this body after the 
conference committee was a list of offenses so short and rare that the 
TWIC restrictions offered by the so-called SAFE Port bill are 
essentially meaningless. The conference committee chose not to ban 
murderers, rapists, arsonists, smugglers, kidnappers, and hostage-
takers from accessing the most secure areas of our Nation's ports. In 
short, they chose to override the expressed will of the Senate and make 
America less secure.
  I trusted that Senators chosen to sit in conference with the House 
would act to protect items included by the Senate; especially those 
items with unanimous or near-unanimous consent in

[[Page S10056]]

this body that are critical to our homeland security.
  But that trust was betrayed last fall, anonymously, behind closed 
doors.
  It is not only those backroom deals that bring me here to offer this 
amendment today, but also the episode witnessed out in the open, on the 
Senate floor, during consideration of the 9/11 Commission bill in 
February of this year.
  At that time, I again offered an amendment to codify the Department 
of Homeland Security's final rule on TWIC disqualifying offenses. But 
this time, I requested a rollcall vote, since the conferees clearly 
gave no regard to the unanimous voice of the Senate last fall.
  This should have been another noncontroversial passage. However, 
knowing they would be forced to actually go on record this time around, 
a separate side-by-side amendment preferred by Democrats and, no doubt, 
their allies in the labor unions, was introduced. Its language was less 
restrictive, allowing the current or future DHS Secretary to modify--in 
other words, remove--disqualifying offenses on the list. It passed 58-
37.

  My amendment was voted on immediately after, and passed 94-2. An 
article in the Roll Call newspaper from July 9 recounted the episode:

       In February, 13 Democrats and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-
     Vt.) voted against an amendment offered by Senator Jim DeMint 
     (R-S.C.) to prevent people convicted of terrorism or other 
     felonies from getting access to secure areas of American 
     seaports. But before the vote was over, they all switched to 
     ``yea.''

  What happened was Democrat leadership made it clear to their caucus 
that their version, allowing removal of felonies from the list, would 
replace my language in conference. My Democrat colleagues switched to 
supporting my version because they knew it was irrelevant; that it 
would be ``taken care of'' behind closed doors, just like last time. 
Again, the final vote in favor of my amendment was 94-2.
  And it is not just the Senate that overwhelmingly supports my 
language. The House of Representatives, just last week, voted 354-66 to 
instruct conferees to include my language in the conference report.
  The conference report for the 9/11 Commission bill is beginning to 
circulate, and I understand that the conference committee has now 
denied the will of the Senate and the House, by including language 
allowing the removal of serious felonies from the list of TWIC interim 
disqualifying offenses.
  The language has been watered down to reopen loopholes allowing 
smugglers, arsonists, kidnappers, rapists, extortionists, and people 
convicted of bribery, money laundering, and hostage taking to obtain 
access to secure areas in our ports.
  We have a chance now on this appropriations bill to ensure that 
whatever is done to weaken these provisions on the 9/11 Commission 
bill, that it will not have the effect of weakening our port security 
this year. We must not allow our constituents to be betrayed again by 
deals made in secret.
  That is why I am offering this amendment. Again, it prohibits the 
Department of Homeland Security from using any funds we are 
appropriating in this Act to remove items from the list of offenses 
disqualifying individuals from receiving transportation worker 
identification credentials, also known as TWIC cards. I will ask my 
colleagues later in the day to support this amendment, and hopefully we 
will have a vote on it.

  Mr. President, how much time is remaining on the minority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tester). Eight minutes.
  Mr. DeMINT. I would also like to address my amendment No. 2482.
  This amendment would prevent the Government from shutting down when 
regular appropriations bills are not enacted. It would do so by 
automatically triggering a continuing resolution that funds agencies at 
current levels for up to 1 year. The amendment would begin automatic 
funding on the first day of a lapse in appropriations and it would end 
on the day the regular appropriations bill becomes law or the last day 
of the fiscal year, whichever comes first.
  This would eliminate the must-pass nature associated with regular 
appropriations bills which often pressures lawmakers into accepting 
spending bills with objectionable spending.
  The Democratic leader said at the beginning of the year that he would 
get all of the appropriations bills done before the end of the fiscal 
year, but there are only 2 months left and we have not completed a 
single bill. This means we are going to eventually be faced with having 
to pass a bad bill or alowing parts of the Government to shut down. I 
certainly don't support that and I know my colleagues do not either. 
This amendment will prevent that kind of train wreck from ever 
happening.
  The President supports this amendment as I believe any President 
would because it prevents their administration from being shut down. 
His fiscal year 2008 budget says:

       In the 22 out of the past 25 years in which Congress has 
     not finished appropriation bills by the October 1st deadline, 
     it has funded the Government through ``continuing 
     resolutions'' (CRs), which provide temporary funding 
     authority for Government activities, usually at current 
     levels, until the final appropriations bills are signed into 
     law.
       If Congress does not pass a CR or the President does not 
     sign it, the Federal Government must shut down. Important 
     Government functions should not be held hostage simply 
     because of an impasse over temporary funding bills. There 
     should be a back-up plan to avoid the threat of a Government 
     shutdown, although the expectation is that appropriations 
     bills still would pass on time as the law requires. Under the 
     Administration's proposal, if an appropriations bill is not 
     signed by October 1 of the new fiscal year, funding would be 
     automatically provided at the lower of the President's Budget 
     or the prior year's level.

  My amendment would create a safety net that would avoid crisis 
situations that often pressure lawmakers into supporting spending bills 
they would not otherwise support. This is a commonsense proposal and I 
encourage my colleagues to support it.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I notice the presence on the floor of the 
distinguished Senator from Ohio, who is under the order to have a 
specific amount of time for debate.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member of the 
Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee for giving me this 
opportunity.
  Yesterday, when I heard the Senate was considering passing an 
additional $3 billion in emergency spending to secure the border, I 
looked into the situation very carefully and calculated that, with the 
funding level the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee 
recommended, we are already going to be increasing budget authority for 
border protection and enforcement by roughly 23 percent over fiscal 
year 2007. The President's budget had recommended $13.5 billion, an 11 
percent increase in border protection budget authority over fiscal year 
2007. The Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, in their 
wisdom, decided to increase it by another $1.4 billion, which takes it 
to a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If the Graham amendment 
passes, we will have increased budget authority for this priority by 
almost 47 percent over what we appropriated last year.
  I let the majority leader know that I objected to having this 
amendment for $3 billion in emergency spending considered by unanimous 
consent. I thank him for the opportunity to object to it on the basis 
of a unanimous consent, and I am pleased this will be scheduled for a 
rollcall vote, I believe at 11:30.
  Mr. President, as a senior member of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, and former chairman and now ranking 
member of its Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia for the last 8 years, I 
rise today to speak against the proposal to allocate an additional $3 
billion in emergency spending for the Department of Homeland Security.
  First, I want to make clear that I agree with my colleagues that we 
must secure our border and provide the resources to do it. Had it not 
been for the fact that the previous administration and former 
Congresses failed to provide the money needed for border security, we 
would not have the illegal immigration problem now facing our country.
  That being said, this administration has religion and in the past 
several years has taken seriously the need to

[[Page S10057]]

secure our borders. The President has recommended the funding necessary 
to get the job done.
  Let me remind my colleagues that the Department's overall budget has 
grown more than 150 percent since the Department's creation merging 22 
disparate agencies; while total homeland security spending has more 
than tripled since 2001. Of that total, border security and immigration 
enforcement represents approximately one-third of the Department's 
annual spending.
  Since 2001, Congress has more than doubled funding for border 
security, from $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $10.4 billion in 
fiscal year 2007. Including the $14.9 billion recommended by the 
Appropriations Committee, this figure would jump to a more than 220-
percent increase in border security spending since 2001.
  Through the Secure Border Initiative, a comprehensive and multi-year 
strategic plan funded by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security 
is making substantial progress. I would like to take a moment to share 
with you the achievements to date.
  The number of border patrol agents has already been increased by 
nearly 40 percent, from about 9,700 in 2001 to 13,360 today. Congress 
has appropriated funds to hire a total of 2,500 new agents this year, 
bringing the anticipated fiscal year 2007 year-end total to 14,819 
agents. The fiscal year 2008 budget we are considering would provide 
funds for an additional 3,000 border patrol agents, bringing the fiscal 
year 2008 year-end total to nearly 18,000 border patrol agents. By the 
end of fiscal year 2008, we will have doubled the size of the border 
patrol since 2001.
  As we continue to ramp up the number of border patrol agents, 6,000 
National Guard personnel have been deployed to the Southwest border as 
part of Operation Jumpstart. These personnel continue to assist Customs 
and Border Protection's efforts to secure the border.
  The Department of Homeland Security has already gained effective 
control of 380 miles on the southwest border, plans to achieve 
effective control of 642 miles by the end of calendar year 2008; and 
has a strategic plan in place to gain control over the entire southwest 
border by 2013.
  The Federal Government has effectively ended the practice of ``catch 
and release'' through a combination of tough enforcement and increased 
detention capacity.
  We have more than doubled the number of immigration investigators.
  The Federal Government has increased detention bed space by 46 
percent.
  We would all like to see these efforts move more quickly, but the 
reality is that it takes time to build fences, it takes time to build 
radar towers, and it takes time to hire and train quality border patrol 
agents. The executive branch has made clear that border security is a 
high priority and has developed a strategic plan to accomplish these 
goals as quickly as realistically possible.
  Today, while the Senate engages in debate, Customs and Border 
protectorate agents will apprehend roughly 2,617 people crossing 
illegally into the United States. Immigration and Customs enforcement 
personnel will house approximately 19,729 aliens in ICE detention 
facilities. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center will train more 
than 3,500 Federal officers and agents. These daily statistics are 
further evidence that progress is being made.
  I recall the February 2007 hearing before the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee when Secretary Chertoff presented his 
budget request for fiscal year 2008. The Secretary asked for $13 
billion to strengthen border security and immigration enforcement.
  In justifying the administration's request, I can assure you that 
Secretary Chertoff was quite clear that he took very seriously his 
responsibility to secure the border. His testimony detailed the 
progress he had made, while outlining the Department's multiyear 
strategic plan for continued improvements. In recognition of the 
challenge, the Secretary acknowledged that we still had a long way to 
go to objectively say to the American people that the border is secure. 
The amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee in the 
base bill ensures these goals will be met.
  The Appropriations Committee reviewed the Department's budget request 
and in its wisdom decided that the President may not have provided 
ample resources to the Department of Homeland Security. As a result, 
the Appropriations Committee recommended $1.4 billion above the 
President's request for border security and enforcement, at a total of 
$14.9 billion, which is a 23 percent increase over fiscal year 2007. If 
you include 3 billion more it will amount to a 47 percent increase.
  I am confident that in addition to believing more money was needed 
for the Department, the Appropriations Committee wanted to send a 
signal to the American people that we have heard their cry to secure 
the border.
  The Department of Homeland Security requested $35.5 billion for 
fiscal year 2008, but this bill provides $37.6 billion, more than $2.2 
billion above what the Department says it needs. But now, the Senate is 
proposing to increase that amount by yet another $3 billion, so that 
the total budget authority would surpass $40 billion. Some Senators 
claim that this is OK because that $3 billion has been designated 
``emergency spending,'' as if using the emergency label is like waving 
a magic wand so that it doesn't actually cost us anything. That is not 
true. At the end of the day, this amendment will increase the national 
debt by $3 billion, regardless of what label you put on it.
  I might add that the President said he would veto this bill because 
it includes an ``irresponsible and excessive level of spending.'' 
Irresponsible and excessive--words we in Congress disregard too often. 
Obviously from his perspective, the $35.5 billion in net budget 
authority for fiscal year 2008 that Secretary Chertoff requested from 
Congress was what he felt was needed to fund the Department of Homeland 
Security and continue the efforts to secure the border. I know the 
President wants to assure the American people that he has moved with 
urgency to secure the border before he leaves office. Border security 
will indeed be part of this President's legacy.
  In the simplest of terms, the Federal Government continues to spend 
more than it brings in, and both the amendment and the underlying bill 
continue that practice. Over my 8 years in the U.S. Senate, I have 
watched the national debt skyrocket 60 percent--from $5.6 trillion in 
1999 to $9 trillion today.
  No one talks about the national debt anymore. But running the credit 
card for today's needs and leaving the bill for future generations 
should not be the policy of the U.S. Congress. It represents a 
recklessness that threatens our economic security, our competitiveness 
in the global marketplace, and our future quality of life. If we decide 
we absolutely need to spend $3 billion on something--and I support 
adequately funding border security--then we need to either raise more 
revenue or cut other spending to pay for it. Simply adding it to the 
national debt makes our country less secure in the long run.
  How does continuing to borrow and spend make us less secure? Today, 
55 percent of the privately owned national debt is held by foreign 
creditors--mostly foreign central banks. That is up from 35 percent 
just 5 years ago. Foreign creditors provided more than 80 percent of 
the funds the United States has borrowed since 2001, according to the 
Wall Street Journal. And who are these foreign creditors?
  According to the Treasury Department, the largest foreign holders of 
U.S. debt are Japan, China, and the oil-exporting countries known as 
OPEC. Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC 
puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at 
risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that hold our debt 
do not control our future.
  Why are we taking the fiscally irresponsible act that will add to our 
unbalanced budget and national debt? I am glad that the administration 
and Congress have placed the needed focus on this important priority, 
but I want to ensure that we do not go too far in simply throwing money 
at this problem; money that cannot be effectively spent in fiscal year 
2008--which begins in October.
  This money is not needed in light of the money the Appropriations 
Committee has recommended, including the

[[Page S10058]]

$2.2 billion in additional spending over which the President has 
threatened a veto. The Department is already spending one-third of its 
budget on border security and immigration enforcement--a clear 
reflection of its priorities.
  Next year, the Senate will review the President's budget request and 
the Appropriations Committee will recommend funding levels. If next 
year, we determine that more needs to be spent to continue to improve 
border security and enforcement, fine. But let's not simply toss an 
additional $3 billion out the window for fiscal year 2008.
  I have the deepest respect for my colleagues, but I respectfully 
disagree on appropriating an additional $3 billion in emergency 
spending. They know and I know that the sole reason for appropriating 
these funds would be to convince the American people that Congress 
cares about securing the border--even though we know this additional 
spending exceeds what can possibly be spent in the 2008 fiscal year.
  The question I ask is: How dumb do they think the American people 
are? Don't they realize that the American people will see through this 
charade and realize we are pulling a fast one on them?
  How cynical can we be? The American people want us to work harder and 
smarter and do more with less and will be very angry that we are simply 
throwing money at a problem in a manner designed to make them feel good 
in the short term. This is the type of game playing that has caused our 
approval ratings to slump to all-time lows.
  When something comes along that we decide we must spend more money 
on--and border security could very well be one of those things--then we 
need to be prepared to pay for that additional spending by either 
bringing in more revenues or cutting other spending. I ask my 
colleagues not to support this fiscally irresponsible act that will 
surely diminish our credibility with the American people.
  I thank the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on 
Homeland Security for this opportunity. I hope some of my colleagues 
have an opportunity to understand why I think what we are doing here 
today is absolutely fiscally irresponsible. I am extremely pleased that 
this administration and this Congress is taking border security 
seriously. This attention is long overdue. I know all of us are trying 
to convey to the public that we are finally acting to secure the 
border. There is no one more ardent about that than I am. But let me 
remind my colleagues that the Department of Homeland Security has 
presented this Congress with a multiyear strategic plan for improving 
border security and enforcement, called the Secure Border Initiative. 
The Appropriations Subcommittee recommendations have fully funded the 
Department's request for what they believe they can accomplish in 
fiscal year 2008.
  I have been on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee since I came to the Senate. I was part of creating the 
Department of Homeland Security. I have spent many hours with Secretary 
Chertoff and other Department officials. I really believe the money 
that has been recommended by the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee is adequate to get the job done during fiscal year 2008, 
in line with the Department's multiyear strategic plan. And we will 
reevaluate this situation for fiscal year 2009, and fiscal year 2010, 
and so on. But I do not think we should go through the charade of 
making the American people believe we are really sincere about securing 
the border by spending another $3 billion of emergency spending when 
the substantial funding that has already been recommended for fiscal 
year 2008 will get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement the 
remaining time will be controlled by myself and the Senator from 
Arkansas; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority has 40 seconds remaining in 
morning business.

                          ____________________