The Honorable Don Nickles The Honorable Kent Conrad February 28, 2003 Page 7 accounting misconduct continued to mount. Restoring the faith of investors, both large and small, at home and abroad, in America's capital markers must be a top priority of the U.S. government. Accordingly, the Committee supports the Administration's proposal to increase the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC's) budget to $842 million in keeping with previously authorized amounts. Along with the recent creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a strengthened Securities and Exchange Commission is an important step in restoring investors' lost confidence. The range of corporate misconduct, the failure of parties with oversight responsibility both public and private, and the assistance provided to Enron by its bankers were all the subjects of investigations by both the Committee and its Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (PSI). Specifically, PSI's in-depth look at various business practices characterized by Enron's bankers as "routine" reinforces the notion that there are likely many practices still ongoing that would not withstand the scrutiny of rigorous investigation. As the federal government's primary enforcer of the laws ensuring the integrity of our financial markets, the SEC needs adequate resources to effectively carry out its responsibilities. Now that Congress has increased the SEC's power and responsibility through the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, it is appropriate that it provide the SEC with the means to carry out its expanded role. District of Columbia The budget for the District of Columbia includes a number of key funding priorities concerning projects and programs of interest to the Committee. The District of Columbia courts, which includes the D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals, are funded and overseen by Congress, not the local government. Therefore, it is critically important for Congress to ensure adequate funding for the local court system. In particular, the proposed budget continues support for the implementation of the District of Columbia Family Court. Last Congress, The District of Columbia Family Court Act of 2001 created a new Family Court within the D.C. Superior Court. The Act also imposed new requirements on the D.C. Superior Court with respect to staffing levels and the creation and expansion of new building space. It will be important to continue to provide the funding support the D.C. courts will need to meet the requirements established in the D.C. Family Court Act of 2001. The President's proposal also includes $17 million for the D.C. College Tuition Program. This locally-run, federally funded program provides the difference between in and out of state tuition for D.C. high school graduates to attend public colleges and universities nationwide. It also provides a $2,500 stipend to D.C. high school graduates to attend private colleges in the greater Washington, D.C. area and Historically Black Colleges and Universities nationwide. The Honorable Don Nickles The Honorable Kent Conrad February 28, 2003 Since its inception in 1999, the program has consistently been funded at $17 million each year and I would encourage continued support for this program, as proposed by the President. The President proposes $58 million to help improve the Anacostia River in D.C. and $10 million to create an Anacostia river-walk along the water's edge. In addition, the proposal includes $15 million to the local water and sewer authority to reduce sewer overflows into the Anacostia River. These funds are intended to improve the quality of the water in the Anacostia River and to allow the development and re-vitalization of the District along the waterfront. This effort is intended to support the proposed plan for usage of the city's waterfront as supported by the National Capital Planning Commission. Conclusion I look forward to working with the Budget Committee on crafting a fair and fiscallysound budget measure that addresses the government's major management challenges, thereby helping to strengthen the trust of the American people in their government. Sincerely, Susan M. Collins Susan M. Collins 1 Hon. Don Nickles homeland security spending above and beyond the President's Budget - for an overall homeland budget for FY 04 of $57 billion, rather than $41 billion. I outlined my views on the necessary homeland security budget on February 14, 2001, in a speech the text of which is available on my website.' Some of the most glaring shortfalls of the President's request are highlighted below. First Responders The most critical need is to rush significant new dollars to our first responders who are on the frontlines of the war on terrorism here at home. It is unconscionable that these first responders have yet to receive the $3.5 billion that was promised them more than a year ago by the President. The recently approved omnibus appropriations bill for FY 03 will supply them with too little, too late. Moreover, looking ahead, the President proposes only the same level of federal support - $3.5 billion - for these first responders in FY 04 as they gird for the battle against terrorism. Far more is needed, and fast. I am calling for an additional $7.5 billion in FY 04 for first responders, for a total of $11 billion. That money would help pay for interoperable communications equipment (a vital security need estimated to cost billions of dollars to address), training and equipment to prepare for and respond to weapons of mass destruction, and salaries for additional fire fighters. These are significant new expenditures, but they are essential if we are to meet our obligations to the communities on the frontlines of the war on terror. Moreover, unlike the President's proposed Budget, these funds should not come at the expense of existing programs for first responders, such as the Community Oriented Policing (COPS) grants or the Byrne formula grant program. Transportation and Port Security It is widely recognized by leading experts that our ports constitute one of the most glaring weaknesses of our homeland defenses. For instance, millions of cargo containers arrive at these ports each year, yet only about 2 percent are searched. Any could become a vehicle to smuggle in a dangerous weapon, or even terrorists themselves. This poses a risk not only at the ports, but also inland -- as some of these containers travel many miles to their final destination without being searched. We must do better to secure these vital portals and the containers that pass through them. Notwithstanding this ominous picture, the Administration has slighted one of the most glaring needs: the physical security of these ports. The Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost $4.4 billion to improve basic physical security at the nation's ports, starting with close to $1 billion the first year. In addition, the Maritime Security Act, passed by Congress last fall and signed by the President, mandates certain security measures without providing a funding 1 http://www.senate.gov/~lieberman/speeches/03/02/2003214923.html Hon. Don Nickles mechanism. We must go beyond basic physical security to create sophisticated security systems that will isolate suspicious cargo while allowing the ongoing flow of trade. Yet the Administration's proposed Budget, remarkably, designates no money for port security grants to tackle these security problems. We must move to strengthen port security and I advocate $1.2 billion in port security grants in FY 04. The proposed Budget also underfunds critical programs to inspect more containers overseas, and to modernize the Coast Guard fleet and related communications equipment. Proposed funding for the Coast Guard modernization effort, for instance, remains at the level outlined for a timetable of 20 years or longer. Clearly, current circumstances call for greater urgency – and greater funding. I call for an additional $700 million. for this modernization effort in FY 04. More broadly, the Administration must do more to tackle the threats to our diverse transportation networks. As we saw tragically on September 11, 2001, terrorists can exploit weaknesses in our transportation networks to turn them into instruments of terror. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was created to confront that grim reality, but it cannot succeed without more support from the Administration and Congress. The TSA has made its initial mark at our airports, overseeing passenger screening and requirements that baggage be screened for possible explosives. Now, the agency must build on its work at airports, and expand to other transportation sectors. Unfortunately, the Administration's proposed Budget allows for neither task. The Administration has requested $4.8 billion for TSA in FY 04, a 10% decrease from the Administration's FY03 request of $5.3B. This will leave TSA hard-pressed to effectively maintain its current efforts regarding air travel, much less expand its reach to new transportation sectors for which it is also responsible. Yet the security needs in other modes of transportation are glaring. For instance, passenger and freight rail must be strengthened through greater protection of bridges, tunnels, and other key facilities. Mass transit systems, as well, are facing hundreds of millions of dollars in potential security costs such as improved communications systems, surveillance equipment and mobile command centers. These essential security investments will not happen without help from the federal government. I am urging an additional $1.7 billion for TSA in FY 04 to begin its work on other transportation modes, including money for rail, transit, and bus security. Bioterror Some of the most chilling scenarios posed by homeland security experts are those of a chemical, biological, or radiological attack. We are painfully dependent on our public health network to help prepare for and respond to such an assault. Yet these health providers have not been given adequate resources to fulfill this role. The Administration's Budget proposes no increase for grants from the Centers for Disease Control to help state public health departments care for and track infectious disease outbreaks. Yet these departments desperately need more |