House Votes Major Increases in Homeland Security Funding

But Some Senior Members Remain Skeptical of White House Port Security Plan

By JAMES D. HESSMAN
Senior Writer & Editor Emeritus

The new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) passed its first major congressional test of fire with a few bumps and bruises--but also with a billion dollars more in FY 2004 funding, relative to the White House request.

The committee recommended, and the House subsequently approved, the appropriation of $30.4 billion in DHS funding for FY 2004, $1 billion more than the $29.4 billion requested by the president.

However, more money is in the offing if some House members prevail in their efforts to increase funding for port security.

Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo (R-N.J.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation, told Sea Power that he "remains concerned ... [about] the security efforts underway in foreign ports" and for that reason already has acted "to provide additional resources to the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of shipments coming into the United States from overseas."

His statement is indicative of congressional reservations about one of the administration's more controversial homeland security initiatives that is only partially addressed in the committee report. The White House intends to extend the nation's maritime-security borders by having foreign governments, or professional maritime organizations working on behalf of those governments, certify that foreign-flag ships and cargo bound for the United States have been inspected before their departure from overseas ports and fully adhere to the more rigid U.S. safety and security standards put into place after 9/11.

Critics say it would not be prudent to entrust the safety of U.S. ports and waterways to foreign governments or their proxies. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.), a member of the subcommittee, said he was concerned about the easy "availability" of false International Maritime Organization security certificates, according to the 3 July issue of Congressional Quarterly.

The alternative is to give the Coast Guard additional funding for yet another mission: the inspection, overseas, of foreign-flag ships and cargoes headed to U.S. ports. That funding, an estimated $70 million, is not included in H.R. 2555.

An additional $50 million is included in the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2003 (H.R. 2443), LoBiondo said, "for review and approval of foreign port assessments and foreign-flagged vessel security plans." He said the issue will be the subject of future hearings.

The House Appropriations Committee's report on the FY 2004 DHS Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2555) expresses solid support for most, but not quite all, of the numerous homeland-security initiatives announced by the president or DHS Secretary Tom Ridge since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. The report also makes clear that the committee expects improved performance in some areas and wants to take a long second look at certain acquisition programs before giving final approval to the expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

The committee, chaired by Rep. C.W. Bill Young (R-Fla.), also approved the expenditure of $5.6 billion over 10 years, including $890 million in FY 2004, "to encourage the commercial development and production of medical countermeasures against bioterrorism."

The committee's biggest change to the president's request is an $888 million add-on earmarked for state and local first responders, such as police, firefighters, and medical personnel. This increase was no surprise because there are literally thousands of first responders in each of the nation's 435 congressional districts.

The committee also recommended major funding increases for border protection and related activities, for Transportation Security Administration (TSA) programs and activities, for DHS science and technology programs, and for protection of "the nation's critical infrastructure and key assets."

Direct Orders From Congress

Although recognizing "the many difficulties" involved in staffing a new department, the committee made clear in its report that it intends to keep a tight rein on spending in areas where the budget request lacks sufficient documentation or, from the committee's point of view, has not been fully justified. The report, introduced by Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), voices not only "concern" but also "disappointment" over the department's performance to date in certain areas. The biggest such issue, the report suggests, was the administration's failure to request any funding for the in-line installation of additional explosive detection systems at U.S. airports. "The committee is very disappointed" at the administration's inaction, the report states. The committee directed TSA to report, by 1 September 2003 "and every quarter thereafter," on its installation plan as well as "the timetable, and the cost estimates for each airport." The panel also directed the submission of numerous other reports, program plans, expenditure projections, and other data and supporting documentation that it wants to see before giving final approval to specific DHS expenditures.

The most helpful information, perhaps, will be included in "a monthly budget execution report" showing, in voluminous detail, "the status of obligations and costs" for all DHS offices and agencies. The committee directed the department to submit the report beginning in January 2004.

Many other reports are due much earlier. The committee required DHS to submit two reports this month, for example: on the number and adequacy of containers used for the protection of classified information; and on the locations being considered for the establishment of DHS regional offices.

One politically sensitive report falls into the "operational immediate" category. Concerned about problems that have been encountered with the machine card reader for the Mexican Border Crossing Card, the committee noted that a report requested earlier, and due on 1 May, on the "status of plans" to resolve those problems had not been delivered as of 23 June. The report directs DHS to "complete and deliver" the report "as soon as possible."

In other sections of the bill, the committee directed the department to deliver myriad other reports on or related to such matters as the following:

* DHS plans to ensure that its wireless radio communications (being converted to narrowband operations) are compatible with similar upgrades planned at state and local levels; this report is due by 15 December 2003.

* The consolidation and standardization of the "several individual terrorist and criminal watch-list systems" now maintained by various DHS offices and agencies; due by 15 October 2003.

* An evaluation by 30 March 2004 on how the dual-use technologies the Coast Guard employs in its counterdrug and counterterrorism missions might also help other DHS agencies--"to detect minute quantities of narcotics and explosive materials," for example, "on individuals, baggage, vehicles, cargo, and documents."

* A DHS analysis due 15 January 2004 of whether the department's newly formed Terrorist Threat Integration Center--created to serve as "the focus for information-sharing and intelligence ... [on] domestic terrorism"--is "fully meeting the Department's intelligence needs."

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security started its own markup of the bill in early July and has recommended a number of changes to the House version of the funding bill. After all differences in the two versions of the bill are reconciled in conference--shortly after the congressional summer recess, in all likelihood--a clean version of the funding measure will be introduced in both houses and, barring unforeseen difficulties, will be passed in early September by both chambers and sent to the president for his signature. *