While I intend to support this mark, and believe it represents an improvement over the budget request-it is still a far cry from the bill I believe we would want to craft were we operating under a more reasonable allocation.
Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairman Carter for the open, collaborative, and bipartisan process he has led this spring, culminating with the fiscal year 2014 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill before us.
Let me begin by offering my heartfelt sympathy and support to the people of Oklahoma. The storm they endured was absolutely devastating. The images of homes, schools and businesses destroyed are traumatic, but the lives lost are what make this disaster a tragedy of epic proportions. For me and others, as parents and grandparents, the loss of so many children at a school is truly heartbreaking. We must do all we can to help.
I commend Chairman Carter for providing the requested amount, $6.22 billion, for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). This will ensure the DRF remains fully funded at such a critical time and with Hurricane season on the horizon. I also remind my colleagues, should additional emergency disaster funding become necessary, that families in need and their communities depend on swift relief and assistance. Congress must respond immediately and effectively, without distracting fights over budget policy.
Now onto the crux of the bill before us: the mark provides $38.993 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), $35 million below the request and $613 million below the amounts appropriated for FY 2013. Mr. Chairman, you have done a good job in your mark, working with the low funding allocation presented to you. While this mark hews closely to the overall spending figure requested by the President, I don't believe either number is sufficient to fully provide DHS with the resources it needs to help keep the nation safe
I also want to make it clear that my support for the Chairman's mark is no way an endorsement of the discretionary spending caps adopted by the majority in the House budget resolution. Sequestration was intended to be a mechanism to force the parties to come together to address our long term fiscal challenges. It was never meant to be, in itself, a tool for deficit reduction, and it was certainly never meant to be the basis for a discretionary spending cap in a budget resolution.
As insufficient as it is, our allocation is still better than most of the other domestic bills, which will struggle to appropriately fund critical priorities, such as medical and energy research, law enforcement and the justice system, and investments in education and infrastructure. The homeland security bill is not the only bill that deals with our country's strength and security, and the allocations provided these subcommittees by the Ryan budget put that security at grave risk.
That being said, and given the low 302(b) allocation this Subcommittee had to work with, I applaud the chairman and his staff for addressing a number of Democratic priorities, including first responder and anti-terrorism grants, as well as providing increases above the request for frontline DHS employees so that they can continue to conduct critical operations along our borders, protect our nation's airports, seaports, and land ports of entry, and respond to natural disasters across the country.
Right before last year's mark-up we were reminded of the threats facing our nation when the intelligence community thwarted an attempt to place a non-metallic improvised explosive device on an aircraft bound for the United States. This year, following the terrorist attacks in Boston, we are forced to confront the tragic reality that these threats remain constant, that terrorists remain determined to attack the homeland, and that they will devise more and more perverse ways to kill and harm innocent people.
This requires DHS, the intelligence community, and local first responders to remain vigilant and strive continually to optimize their scarce resources. That is why I am pleased this bill increases funding for critical grant programs while once again rejecting the Administration's poorly articulated proposal to re-engineer the grant structure - - a proposal that has not been authorized. Specifically, I want to thank you for providing $1.5 billion in FEMA state and local grants, an increase of $35 million over the FY13 appropriated level, and also for keeping both fire grants and emergency performance grants level with FY13. The bill also doubles the requested funding for the Office for Bombing Prevention to accelerate planning, training and awareness programs to help detect and respond to IEDs and other explosive devices.
Equally important, the bill provides a $16.9 million increase in funding for research and development efforts at the Science and Technology Directorate. When you combine this funding with what was included in the final FY13 bill, we have made significant progress since FY12, providing funding for high-priority research efforts and some new projects as well. The bill also provides substantial funding, $404 million, for construction of the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility.
In addition, the bill increases funding for critical Coast Guard and CBP Air and Marine acquisitions to recapitalize aging assets, while also bringing the latest aviation and vessel technologies online to ensure our frontline personnel can operate more effectively - - improving on the Administration's request on each of these fronts.
Finally, I am also pleased that the mark provides funding for the additional 1,600 Customs and Border Protection Officers (CBPOs) requested by the Administration and for substantially strengthened cyber security protective efforts. These efforts are absolutely necessary to monitor and detect intrusions to our Federal networks and protect them from foreign espionage and cyber attacks.
I do have some concerns with this bill as well, notably some of the immigration provisions. As I have said throughout the hearing season, setting an arbitrary minimum of 34,000 ICE detention beds, especially in this fiscal climate, denies ICE the flexibility it needs to manage its enforcement and removal resources in response to changing circumstances and to use cheaper, alternative forms of supervision when appropriate.
The bill also unnecessarily continues the 287(g) program, which, in addition to being seriously flawed, is in fact obsolete with the full implementation of the Secure Communities program.
I also must note my concern with some of the withholdings in this bill. I understand the need to give incentives to the Department to respect reporting deadlines established by the Committee, but I hope we can temper some of these withholdings as we move through the process, as they have the potential to seriously undermine the Department's management functions.
This bill also provides no funding for the new DHS headquarters already under construction, despite $105.5 million in the request. We have been told repeatedly by the Administration that deferring these investments will greatly increase the project's costs and ultimately affect frontline operations, and I believe that they are correct on both counts.
So while I intend to support this mark, and believe it represents an improvement over the budget request-it is still a far cry from the bill I believe we would want to craft were we operating under a more reasonable allocation. As we move through this process, I hope to work with the Chairman to rectify some of the shortfalls I have highlighted, to increase funding levels to critical components, and to tighten the bill in other respects.
I also want to reiterate my appreciation for the hardworking and dedicated staff on both sides of the aisle. In the course of just two months, they have diligently wrapped up the FY13 bill, digested and analyzed the President's FY14 request, and crafted the bipartisan measure before us.
Source: U.S. Department of HCA
