GovernmentExecutive.com

Senate Republicans and Democrats joined forces Tuesday to boost funding for border and port security in the fiscal 2007 Homeland Security appropriations bill by almost $1 billion, but were bitterly divided over how to restructure the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Senators agreed to two amendments by Senate Appropriations ranking member Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., that would provide $350 million extra for border security and $648 million more for port and cargo security.

But several senators clashed on the floor over restructuring FEMA. In the end, an amendment by Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, and ranking member Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., to transform FEMA but keep it within the department was approved on an 87-11 vote.

The amendment, which had strong backing from Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., would turn FEMA into the U.S. Emergency Management Authority, give it special protections so its budget and staff could not be stripped, and give its administrator direct reporting authority to the White House during a crisis.

A competing amendment to remove FEMA from the department and make it an independent Cabinet-level agency was defeated by a 66-32 vote. That amendment was backed by Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

Before the amendments on border and port security were approved, the spending bill would have provided about $31.7 billion in discretionary spending for the department. But with the additional funding, the Senate bill is now almost $700 million more than the House version, which could set up a complicated conference.

Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., co-sponsored both amendments, saying he supported them because they can be paid for without breaking the Senate's spending cap on the bill.

The border security provisions would be paid for by increasing fees on foreigners for Customs and immigration services, an aide to Byrd said. "The amendment directs the [Homeland Security] secretary to increase those fees. It does not specify which fees to increase," the aide added.

It was not immediately clear late Tuesday whether the fee increase would be opposed by likely House conferees or other lawmakers. In 2004, for example, House Ways and Means Chairman William Thomas, R-Calif., objected to extending Customs user fees in the fiscal 2005 Homeland Security spending bill to pay for $784 million in additional spending.

At the time, Thomas argued that any fee extension violates the constitutional requirement that all revenue measures originate in the House. Thomas' office did not comment by presstime.

The border security amendment would pay for capital infrastructure initiatives, many of which were proposed by Gregg in the fiscal 2006 emergency supplemental spending bill. Byrd said the funding is critical given that new agents for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are being hired.

"Certainly, the secretary has the authority to increase these fees," Byrd's aide said. "This amendment would direct him to choose which fees within his purview he would like to increase."

"Hopefully all members of Congress would recognize that we've got to make these improvements," the aide added. "We can't just hire new Border Patrol agents and immigration enforcement officers and ask them to go on the front line without the proper the equipment."

The amendment would specifically provide $220 million to Customs and Border Protection for air and marine recapitalization, replacing helicopters, buying additional unmanned aerial vehicles and purchasing construction vehicles; $45 million to ICE for replacing vehicles and modernization of information technology systems, and $85 million to Citizenship and Immigration Services for fraud detection and its business transformation program.

The $648 million in additional funding for cargo and port security would be paid for by tapping unobligated fiscal 2006 funds for Homeland Security.

Byrd's aide said the spending bill would have to be signed into law before the end of this fiscal year in order for the unobligated balance to be tapped, but the funds would be available until they are spent.

The amendment would provide $251 million to CBP to put non-intrusive inspection equipment at U.S. seaports and rail border crossings and to hire officers to conduct more cargo inspections; $207 million to the Coast Guard for its Deepwater modernization program and to accelerate security assessments of both foreign and domestic ports; and $190 million more for port security grants.

COMMENTS

• A couple of thoughts: 1. And yet another compelling reason to merge CBP and ICE! Unfortunately, this bit of common sense will likely be ignored, again, by the administration and Congress, despite support from numerous experts both in and outside of government, the media, the few intelligent politicians we have, and the vast majority of CBP and ICE employees themselves. Once again doing the right thing takes a back seat to political expediency and back room deals! 2. Well said, as usual, Gunny. Too bad nobody in a position of authority will care enough to do anything sensible about this fiasco. Time to start thinking about leaving this sinking ship, as so many already have since 2003. GovExec.com reader Posted July 14, 2006 2:24 PM
• All this talk of spending more billions on port security fails to address the obvious, namely, the lack of federal law enforcement officers at the ports! Customs inspectors used to be stationed at all piers, now Customs and Border Protection Officers randomly travel to various locations to look at containers. Everyone is focused on x-raying said containers for WMDs, but what about the other contraband that threatens our national security, namely, narcotics and illegal alien stowaways? Customs Patrol Officers used to search arriving vessels, and were stationed at piers to search crew members, longshoremen, etc. at the functional equivalent of the border. Joint teams of CPOs and Customs and DEA special agents were very successful at stopping sophisticated smuggling operations, including scuba divers who retrieved narcotics thrown overboard from vessels in the dead of night. Numerous seizures and arrests resulted from this activity. The outcome of this success? Customs disbanded the CPOs! Now, Osama bin Laden himself could walk off a ship in Brooklyn at 2 a.m., and there would be nobody from federal law enforcement there to stop him, or anyone else (whatever happened to those missing Soviet suitcase nuclear weapons, anyway?). Threats to our national security come in all shapes and sizes. Let's not put all our eggs in one basket (containers), while ignoring these other equally serious threats! GovExec.com reader Posted July 17, 2006 11:34 AM
• While all this hoopla is tantalizing to the political palate, there are some areas which need clarification, more for Congress than those of us in the field. First off, once again the big push is on to beef up border security and the ports, but interior enforcement gets thrown under the bus. While I don't take away from the urgency of increased protection in those areas, interior enforcement is still an exigent issue and the focal point of many of the local law enforcement agencies I deal with on a daily basis. Illegal aliens, especially those involved in heinous, felony crimes, have been running rampant for too long because of the failure to remove them after due immigration process, having been put on "supervised release" pending proceedings, or being granted entry when they should have been excluded at the ports. While great strides have been made in attempting to locate and arrest them, it still amounts to spit in a bucket because of the vast numbers. Byrd states,"...funding is critical given that new agents for the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are being hired." If I read this story correctly, the funding is for border and port security which falls under the jurisdiction of CBP. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a separate animal so, unless the wording of the bill specifically states ICE, there won't be any bank coming our way. I have heard, directly from the SAC Office that the likelihood of any new hires is pretty much a dead issue for now because of funding issues. The monies they propose to bankroll this farce will be coming from increased Customs fees? Guess what, whatever money is generated by Customs stays within CBP so ICE won't be seeing any of that. So, if they are talking about hiring more ICE agents, where do they propose to come up with the money for it? Same dog, different collar (woof! woof!). The Gunny GovExec.com reader Posted July 12, 2006 2:18 PM