| 
| 
| 
Segment Transcript
Lou Dobbs Tonight - CNNAired February 16, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[...]
My guest tonight says President Bush's budget plan to fund only 210 new Border Patrol agents is, in his words, wholly inadequate. Congressman Christopher Cox is chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, joining us tonight from Capitol Hill.
Mr. Chairman, good to have you here.
REP. CHRISTOPHER COX (R), HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: Happy to join you.
DOBBS: The intelligence reform legislation that you all drafted, the president signed, calls for 2,000 agents. What's going on?
COX: Well, obviously, we're very anxious in the Congress to see this to completion. It's going to require, because of this significant number of additional agents, that we reopen two previously shuttered training facilities. There's a logistical element here. All told, we're talking about an additional one-third of a billion dollars. That's a big slug of money.
Nonetheless, homeland security as a budget function is slated for an increase in its budget. So as chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I'm going to do everything within my power to make sure we put as much in the way of resources to work here as is necessary and possible.
DOBBS: There are some who would say, Mr. Chairman, that the president's response to call for 210 border patrol agents is a message to everyone on two issues: border security and immigration. That this president, this administration and your party wants open borders. And that homeland security on our borders is nothing more than a fiction and a P.R. game. How do you respond?
COX: Well, I certainly wouldn't address it at the party level, because rather obviously, the party in the Congress that's in favor of open borders is the Democratic Party. Republicans have been working hard with some Democrats to make sure that we control our borders.
In particular, I've been focused on this as chairman of the homeland security committee because as we saw in the 9/11 bill and more recently in the bill that we passed at the very beginning of this current 109th Congress, we have to overcome this perception that border security is somehow divorced from homeland security. The 9/11 commission report made it very clear that they are one in the same.
DOBBS: Mr. Chairman, let me ask you as well, because as you know, the inspector general of homeland security of the department, points out that the money for port security grants hasn't gone to where it's badly needed. In point of fact, funding is running far behind in port security in particular. What is going on? And why should this bureaucratic -- apparent bureaucratic mistake be permitted?
COX: Well, Clark Kent Irvin, the inspector general, outgoing for the Department of Homeland Security, contributed, I think, significantly to the debate and to our policy formulation here on Capitol Hill with his most recent pointing out of what's going right and wrong there. But it isn't just a bureaucratic snafu that is the reason that our port security remains a work in progress. Rather, it is because there isn't broad general agreement on precisely what to do and how to spend the money. Coming out of 9/11, we moved with alacrity to deal with problems at airports.
But what we also saw is that we in some ways spent a lot of money, but also didn't get the result we wanted. We have got the national labs working now looking up the whole supply chain to find out how best we can deploy our resources when it comes to port security. It isn't just spending the money in the ports, because once something enters our ports, it's too late. We have got to make sure apprehend, particularly, radiological devices well before then.
DOBBS: Congressman Sensenbrenner, his legislation on the real I.D. passed by the house. Its prospects for the Senate in your judgment?
COX: That's $64,000 question right now. And I think all your viewers and I are all in the same position on this one. We all wonder what in the world the Senate is going to do. I inquired because I anticipated you might want to know the answer to that question.
Just moments ago, most recently from some of my Senate colleagues, what they expect will happen with the Real I.D. Act in the Senate. It is obviously favored by Republicans, but there is some sense that some Democratic senators may object on germainess grounds to including it in the Iraq supplemental and that means it might have to go as a stand alone bill where it could be open to endless amendment on the floor. It might never get the 6- votes it needs for closure.
DOBBS: Mr. Chairman, doesn't it make the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill look either hapless or somewhat disingenuous, if I may use the word, when it has the power and the control and the authority to move this legislation through without Democratic votes?
COX: Of course, we have that power and exercised it in the House of Representatives. The Republican majority does not have that power in the Senate, where it takes 60 votes and Republicans do not have 60 votes in order to get closure on a bill as you know.
DOBBS: The question, I guess that comes next is why wasn't it put with -- as promised in the intelligence reform legislation, why wasn't the promise to put it with a must pass legislation kept by the Republican leadership?
COX: Well, that is, in fact, the plan. We want to include this in the Iraq supplemental. And as I said, there is some betting that some Democratic senators may object on germainess grounds and try and strip it out. That remains to be seen. We'll have to watch and hope for the best.
DOBBS: Congressman Christopher Cox, you have the reputation of being straightforward and an effective legislator. Now chairman of the Homeland Security Committee. We thank you for being here and appreciate your views.
COX: Happy to be with you, Lou.
[...]
|
|
|