[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 109 (Tuesday, September 14, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9167-S9176]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2005

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 4567, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4567) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2005, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Nelson (FL) Amendment No. 3607, to provide funds for the 
     American Red Cross.
       Corzine Amendment No. 3619, to appropriate an additional 
     $100,000,000 to enhance the security of chemical plants.
       Mikulski Amendment No. 3624, to increase the amount 
     appropriated for firefighter assistance grants.
       Kennedy Amendment No. 3626, to require the President to 
     provide to Congress a copy of the Scowcroft Commission report 
     on improving the capabilities of the United States 
     intelligence community.
       Dayton Amendment No. 3629, to ensure the continuation of 
     benefits for certain individuals providing security services 
     for Federal buildings.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senate has made progress on this 
bill. We hope to continue to consider amendments during the remainder 
of the session today. The leader would like us to complete action on 
this bill tonight. I hope we can achieve that goal. If we can't, we can 
go into the next day and try to complete action before noon on 
Wednesday. But we hope we can complete action today. We urge Senators 
who have amendments, suggestions for changes in the bill, to come to 
the floor. We will consider those amendments and deal with them in an 
orderly way. We hope we can reject most of them. There are some we can 
agree to.
  I see my good friend from Connecticut is on the floor and has an 
amendment. I am happy to yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to lay the pending 
amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3630

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment on behalf of myself and 
Senator Specter to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for himself, Mr. 
     Specter, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Levin, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Kennedy, 
     Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 
     3630.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To increase the amount provided for fire department staffing 
               assistance grants; and to provide offsets)

       On page 21, between lines 20 and 21, insert the following:


               Fire Department Staffing Assistance Grants

       For necessary expenses for programs authorized by section 
     34 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 
     U.S.C. 2229a), to remain available until September 30, 2006, 
     $100,000,000: Provided, That not to exceed 5 percent of this 
     amount shall be available for program administration: 
     Provided, further, That the amount appropriated by title I 
     under the heading ``Office of the Under Secretary for 
     Management'' is hereby reduced by $70,000,000, the amount 
     appropriated by title IV under the heading ``Information 
     Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Management and 
     Administration'' is hereby reduced by $20,000,000, and the 
     amount appropriated by title IV under the heading ``Science 
     and Technology Management and Administration'' is hereby 
     reduced by $10,000,000.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment dealing with 
the SAFER Act. This is the No. 1 priority of the various firefighting 
organizations of the United States, whether they be paid firefighters, 
volunteer firefighters, fire chiefs organizations, and others. On 
behalf of Senators Specter, Levin, Harkin, Kennedy, Sarbanes, Daschle, 
Schumer, and myself, we offer this important amendment.
  I want to take a few minutes, with the full recognition that my 
friend and colleague from Mississippi wants to move matters along. I 
will take as little time as I can to explain this amendment and what we 
are trying to do, why I think it is a worthwhile amendment, how we pay 
for it, and why I don't feel that the offset we are suggesting here in 
any way would be detrimental to the Department of Homeland Security.
  Our amendment will help the 33,000 fire departments across America--
paid departments, volunteer departments, and combination departments. 
It will help them acquire the necessary personnel they need in order to 
fight fires and respond to situations all across the country, 
particularly terrorist incidents and other large-scale emergencies that 
may emerge.
  Just yesterday, I spent a couple of hours with the fire department of 
Enfield, CT. I went out on one of the calls--a traffic accident. It 
turned out not to be a serious emergency, but the first vehicles to 
actually respond to the situation were the fire departments of Enfield. 
That happens every single day in this country. I think one firehouse in 
Enfield--one of five--has some 1,200 calls they respond to each year, 
to give you an idea of the magnitude of emergencies these departments 
are called upon to respond to every day of the year, all hours of the 
day and night.
  Mr. President, this amendment is the single most important 
legislative priority of the International Association of Firefighters. 
It is also strongly supported by the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs and the National Volunteer Fire Council. If our colleagues 
support firefighters--and I know many, if not all, do--this is an 
opportunity to support bipartisan legislation that will make a huge 
difference in the personnel area of a fire department.
  In particular, this amendment provides $100 million for the SAFER 
Act, which stands for Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency 
Response. It was enacted last year with significant bipartisan support 
as part of the fiscal year 2004 Department of Defense Authorization 
Act. In fact, the lead sponsors at that time were Senator Warner of 
Virginia, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, along with 
Senators Sarbanes, Daschle, Snowe, Clinton, Corzine, Durbin, Johnson, 
Kerry, Landrieu, Murray, Reed, and Schumer.
  The House of Representatives also has championed very similar, if not 
exact, legislation. It has been supported by the Chairman of the House 
Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert of New York; Republican 
Congressman Curt Weldon, a tremendous champion of firefighters for many

[[Page S9168]]

years; along with House minority whip Steny Hoyer, and Representative 
Bill Pascrell, a strong advocate of firefighters.
  The $100 million our amendment provides is fully offset by reductions 
in management and administrative expenses in title I and title IV of 
the underlying bill. Even with these offsets, the accounts that will be 
affected will still receive an increase over last year's funding 
levels.
  After all, this debate is fundamentally about priorities. Senator 
Specter and I strongly believe the need for additional firefighters on 
our Nation's streets far outweighs the need for increased resources 
devoted to administration and management in Washington, DC.
  If I can, I will explain how this offset works because I know my good 
friend from Mississippi will want to address this. I know that my 
friend from Mississippi has a very difficult job trying to put a bill 
together that is balanced. I respect him immensely for having to 
wrestle with these important issues. Certainly, I would have supported 
a larger 302(b) allocation for homeland security, but that is a debate 
for another day.

  Nevertheless, Senator Specter and I have chosen these offsets with a 
great deal of care. In no instance do they cut programs below last 
year's levels. They don't affect the intelligence community in any way. 
If anything, our offsets will respect the increases in the underlying 
bill but grant smaller increases. In addition, these offsets are from 
increases to administrative and management accounts. We believe it is 
more important to place new firefighters on the streets than new 
managers and administrators in Washington. I will mention specifically 
what we are doing.
  The Office of the Undersecretary for Management in Title I, for 
example, received a significant increase in this bill over last year's 
level. Last year, we funded it at $130 million. This year, the Senate 
bill provides an increase to $245 million for the same office. That is 
an 88-percent increase over last year! If our amendment is adopted, the 
Office of the Under Secretary of Management would still receive a 35-
percent increase over last year's bill.
  It seems to me that if we were gutting the Office for Undersecretary 
for Management and making it impossible for it to operate, others could 
argue we don't have a good case. But in order to help put 75,000 new 
firefighters on the street over the next seven years, I think is a fair 
tradeoff.
  Under title IV of the bill, the $30 million we offset only comes from 
management and administrative expenses. By the way, with that cut we 
are talking about, we still leave the level under title IV higher than 
what is in the House-passed bill.
  We don't believe these offsets we found are in any way damaging to 
the underlying bill. They still allow for substantial increases in 
management and administrative costs, as well as leaving title IV in the 
same position it would be funded at in the House-passed legislation.
  You don't have to take our word on the importance of the legislation 
and the need for increasing the number of people we have in our fire 
departments. The U.S. Fire Administration--not the firefighters, not 
the fire chiefs, but U.S. Fire Administration--and National Fire 
Protection Association found that fire departments throughout the 
Nation, rural America and urban America, lack sufficient personnel to 
adequately protect the public.
  These concerns were echoed last year in the Council on Foreign 
Relations report, authored by our former colleague Warren Rudman. The 
report was entitled ``Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, 
Drastically Underprepared.'' It noted that ``only 10 percent of fire 
departments in the United States have the personnel . . . to respond to 
a building collapse.'' It also found that ``two-thirds of our fire 
departments do not meet the consensus fire standard from minimum safe 
staffing levels,'' which is at least four firefighters per truck at the 
scene of an emergency.
  If our colleagues are not concerned about these findings, they ought 
to be concerned about the Rudman report's conclusion. It said:

       If the Nation does not take immediate steps to better 
     identify and address the needs of emergency first responders, 
     the next terrorist incident could have an even more 
     devastating impact than the September 11 attacks.

  On Saturday our Nation commemorated the third anniversary of that 
tragic day three years ago. No American citizen will ever forget--no 
citizen in the world, for that matter, could ever forget--the heroism 
of the firefighters who were among the first on the scene that day and 
who charged the stairs, while everybody else was running out of these 
buildings.
  Those 343 members of the New York Fire Department made the ultimate 
sacrifice that day in their efforts to save thousands of lives trapped 
in the World Trade Center.
  After September 11, of course, we realized that firefighters face new 
and profound challenges. No longer do they just fight fires, promote 
safety, and inspect fire code violations. Firefighters still have those 
traditional responsibilities, but they are now called upon to do far 
more. They are now asked to respond to the threat of biological, 
chemical, and even nuclear terrorism. In other words, they are asked to 
confront what once seemed unthinkable on American soil. It is, 
therefore, not an exaggeration to say that the Nation's firefighters 
are now literally on the front lines of the war on terror, protecting 
our Nation from the very clear and present danger of future terrorist 
attacks.
  In the past, the Congress has come to the aid of America's 
firefighters. We have provided substantial funds for the FIRE Act Grant 
Program, which I also authored with my good friend Senator DeWine of 
Ohio. FIRE Act grants have enabled fire departments, large and small, 
paid and volunteer, to purchase the necessary equipment and train 
firefighters. That assistance allows them to do a better job. In 
Enfield, CT, yesterday, I saw exactly the kind of equipment that can be 
purchased with a fire grant proposal. It has made a huge difference to 
that one department in a relatively small community in my home State of 
Connecticut.
  While training and equipment are extremely important, they are 
meaningless, obviously, without the personnel needed to take advantage 
of it. After all, what good is a new breathing apparatus if there is no 
firefighter to use it? What good is new protective clothing if there is 
no firefighter to wear it? What good are new firetrucks if there are no 
firefighters to drive them? What good are new portable radios if there 
are no firefighters to communicate with each other?
  We cannot lose sight of the human side of this important issue. It 
takes significant manpower to rush into burning houses and buildings, 
to save the life of a child, deliver emergency medical services and 
respond to an incident involving a chemical or biological agent. It is, 
therefore, this shortfall in firefighter staffing that this bipartisan, 
fully offset amendment that I am offering with Senator Specter and 
others addresses.
  The manpower situation was not always this dire. Yet over the past 
two decades the number of firefighters as a percentage of the U.S. 
workforce has declined considerably. I am going to put up a chart that 
lays out exactly what has happened. This chart will give us a clear 
understanding of the problems that exist.
  Only 11 percent of fire departments can handle, with local personnel, 
a building collapse with 50 occupants or more in it. That means 89 
percent of our departments cannot respond to that. Only 13 percent of 
fire departments can handle a hazardous material incident with chemical 
or biological agents and 10 injuries. Again, 87 percent cannot respond 
to this in an adequate way. Forty percent of fire department personnel 
involved in hazardous material response lack formal training in these 
duties, and 60 to 75 percent of fire departments do not have enough 
fire stations to achieve widely used response time guidelines. That 
gives some idea just in a brief synopsis of how serious the problems 
are across our country as far as the lack of personnel.
  In 1983, for example, there was 1 firefighter for every 212 of our 
citizens. In the year 2000, there was only 1 firefighter for every 260 
Americans. To put it another way, the number of firefighters has 
declined by almost 20 percent, nearly one-fifth, over the last two

[[Page S9169]]

decades. In fact, we have fewer firefighters per capita than nurses and 
police officers.
  The amendment I am offering with our colleagues, if it is approved 
today, will hopefully begin to reverse this disquieting trend. In fact, 
the fire chief at Enfield, CT, told me that when he joined the 
department, there was a waiting list in order to get on the fire 
department. Today they are out every single day seeking to find people 
who will make this a career choice. In fact, they are understaffed at 
that particular station house.

  As to our volunteer departments across the country, particularly in 
rural America, the days when people would be able to serve in a 
volunteer fire department and work in the town they lived in is 
diminishing. More and more people are choosing to live in rural 
environments and work someplace else, and they are unable to be 
volunteer firefighters in the home communities. Thus, the number of 
hired personnel becomes more important. In rural and urban America, the 
problem is the same.
  These numbers I have just cited have recently been exacerbated by the 
fact that many firefighters have been called to active duty in the 
National Guard or Army Reserves. According to a recent survey, the 
smallest fire departments are disproportionately affected by the call-
up of military personnel, and I note the presence of the Presiding 
Officer who comes from the State of Wyoming, where again a lot of small 
rural communities have been disproportionately affected by the call-ups 
and are feeling it in a very significant way. We are told that these 
departments are the least able to absorb the loss of trained staff and 
will stand to benefit from assistance made available under this 
amendment.
  Finally, making matters worse for the fire services are the budget 
crises that State and local governments are enduring. This amendment is 
not suggesting that this ought to be a permanent program where we 
assume the responsibility of paying for the personnel at local fire 
departments across America; it is saying that the U.S. Government ought 
to be a better partner. Just as we have been doing with the COPS 
program, we can be so doing with our fire departments--not at the same 
level, not even close to the same level--but being a better partner to 
help get this on the right track again. Then hopefully, as our economy 
improves, our State and local governments will take over the 
responsibility.
  Over the next 5 or 6 years, stretching this out, not trying to do it 
in 1 year, we can make a real difference in putting some people on the 
ground who can make a difference and save lives in this country.
  Across our Nation today, firefighter staffing is being cut, and fire 
stations are being closed because of State and local budget shortfalls. 
These events are occurring at the same time that threats to our Nation 
by terrorism are placing unprecedented demands on the Nation's fire 
services.
  I need not remind our colleagues this morning that we are currently 
spending billions of America's tax dollars to reconstruct Iraq. Some of 
those very funds are being spent to hire and train Iraqi firefighters 
and build fire stations in that nation. If we can find the resources to 
hire firefighters and renovate fire stations in Iraq, I do not think it 
is outrageous at all to suggest that we might find some resources to 
make a difference in hiring some people to protect our own communities 
in this great Nation of ours.
  Again, I want to emphasize that our amendment is fully paid for, with 
reductions in management and administrative expenditures, by allowing 
for an increase of 35 percent in those areas, reducing the increase 
from 88 to 35 percent, and still by allowing under title 4 the amount 
for administrative and management expenditures at levels above those 
included in the House-passed bill.
  It also has the endorsement of every major firefighter organization 
in this country. This is their No. 1 bill. This is their No. 1 
priority. If we are going to go back home and talk about the importance 
of homeland security and doing a better job, standing up for these men 
and women who put their lives on the line every single day for our 
country, then it seems to me the very least we can do is see to it that 
they have the necessary personnel to do the job, and that is what we 
are asking for with this amendment.
  America's firefighters are always the first ones in and the last ones 
out. They risk their own lives to save the lives of others. They stare 
danger in the face every single day because they know they have a duty 
to fulfill. On the third anniversary of the September 11 attacks, where 
343 firefighters lost their lives doing just that, first ones in and 
last out, I believe there is no better way for us to commemorate 
September 11 and recognize the contribution of those individuals than 
to respond to the very organizations who represented them, who have 
asked us to do a bit better under this bill to see to it that our 
firefighters have the necessary personnel they need in order to do 
their job.
  I thought I had already done this, but if not, I ask unanimous 
consent that Senator Clinton of New York be added as a cosponsor of 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. At the conclusion of these remarks, I ask unanimous consent 
that the letter of full endorsement of the Dodd-Specter amendment by 
Harold Schaitberger, general president of the International Association 
of Fire Fighters, be printed in the Record. I have mentioned already 
where the fire chiefs are on this issue. I also ask unanimous consent 
that the letter from Chief Robert DiPoli, who is the president of the 
International Association of Fire Chiefs, of full endorsement of this 
legislation as well be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibits 1 and 2.)
  This is their priority. This is their opportunity. I need not waste a 
lot more time talking about this. I am sure my colleagues understand 
its importance. I hope on one of these amendments, a bipartisan 
amendment, our colleagues would see fit to be supportive of this 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                         International Association


                                             of Fire Fighters,

                                Washington, DC, September 9, 2004.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of our nation's more than 265,000 
     professional fire fighters, I am writing to urge your support 
     for the Dodd-Specter amendment to the Homeland Security 
     Appropriation (HR 4567) to provide $100 million for a fire 
     fighter staffing initiative. The amendment is fully offset, 
     and enjoys bipartisan support.
       As you know, Congress last year enacted the SAFER Fire 
     Fighters Act to address the critical staffing shortage in 
     both career and volunteer fire departments nationwide. While 
     other federal programs, such as the FIRE Act, have provided 
     funding for fire fighter training and equipment, no federal 
     assistance is currently being provided to ensure that fire 
     departments have adequate personnel to take advantage of 
     these resources.
       Studies conducted by FEMA, the Council on Foreign 
     Relations, and other organizations have consistently found 
     that fire departments throughout the nation lack sufficient 
     personnel to adequately protect the public. The SAFER Fire 
     Fighters Act addresses this need by providing temporary 
     matching funds to enable fire departments to hire additional 
     fire fighters, and providing grants for the recruitment and 
     retention of volunteer fire fighters.
       Thank you for your consideration, and your continued 
     support of America's fire fighters. If you have any questions 
     about this issue, please feel free to contact Barry Kasinitz, 
     IAFF Director of Governmental Affairs, at 202-824-1581.
           Sincerely,
                                           Harold A. Schaitberger,
     General President.
                                  ____


                               Exhibit 2

                                         International Association


                                               of Fire Chiefs,

                                  Fairfax, VA, September 13, 2004.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the nation's fire chiefs, I urge 
     you to vote for the Dodd-Specter Amendment to the homeland 
     security appropriations bill. This amendment would fund the 
     Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response 
     Firefighters Act of 2004 (the ``SAFER Act'') at $100 million 
     in Fiscal Year 2004 (FY05).
       Established in 1873, the International Association of Fire 
     Chiefs (IAFC) is a powerful network of more than 12,000 chief 
     fire and emergency officers. Our members lead fire 
     departments in responding to structural and wildland fires, 
     hazardous materials incidents (including chemical, 
     biological, radiological, and nuclear events), technical 
     rescues (including swiftwater rescues, confined-space

[[Page S9170]]

     rescues, and auto extrication, among others), and emergency 
     medical situations.
       The SAFER Act would go along way toward ensuring the safety 
     of the public--and firefighters--during each of these 
     emergency events. Large numbers of fire departments respond 
     with an inadequate number of personnel. National Fire 
     Protection Association (NFPA) Standard 1710 requires that, at 
     a minimum, four members of a fire or emergency medical 
     services company respond to an event. Often, however, more 
     personnel are needed. In initiating a complete attack on a 
     structural fire, for example, four firefighters are needed to 
     meet OSHA's ``Two In/Two Out'' rule of having two 
     firefighters inside the building and two outside, in case 
     those inside need to be rescued. An incident commander is 
     also required, along with a firefighter operating the water 
     pump and one person ventilating the building.
       Congress authorized the SAFER Act to grant federal funds to 
     local communities to hire more firefighters. Grants would be 
     awarded on the basis of need through a competitive, peer-
     reviewed process modeled after the highly successful 
     Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, which assists fire 
     departments in funding much-needed equipment and training. 
     The grants would be for a four-year period and must not 
     exceed a total of $100,000 per firefighter. They require 
     communities to match the grant (at 10, 20, 50 and 70 percent 
     in years one through four of the grant, respectively, to 
     phase down local government dependence on the federal 
     government). Recipients would be required to retain new hires 
     for at least one year following the conclusion of federal 
     funding.
       Because volunteer firefighters are such an important part 
     of America's fire service, SAFER contains a specific 
     provision to make sure that 10 percent of the appropriated 
     funds are used for departments with majority volunteer or all 
     volunteer personnel. In addition, at least 10 percent of the 
     total appropriated funds must be used to recruit and retain 
     volunteer firefighters.
       Please vote for the Dodd-Specter Amendment to fund SAFER in 
     FY05.
           Sincerely,
                                          Chief, Robert A. DiPoli,
                                                        President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we appreciate very much the offering of 
the amendment by the Senator from Connecticut. We oppose the amendment, 
and I have some very persuasive comments I am going to make on that 
subject. But before I proceed to do so, the Senator from New York has 
indicated an interest in offering an amendment and describing it to the 
Senate. I am happy to withhold my discussion of the Dodd amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent, if the Senator has no objection, to set 
aside his amendment temporarily so the Senator from New York can offer 
her amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the courtesy of 
my friend and colleague. I know, though, that the Senator from 
Connecticut is still on the floor. Perhaps he would want to hear the 
immediate response from the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee. So given that, if it is appropriate, I ask 
unanimous consent I be permitted to follow Senator Cochran, upon the 
conclusion of his response to Senator Dodd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill we presented to the committee--
and the committee approved it and referred it to the Senate for its 
consideration--has been very carefully crafted, analyzing the needs of 
the Department. We conducted a lot of hearings. We have been in 
consultation with the administration, the officials at the Department 
who are administering these programs, trying to make sure that, across 
the board, we are utilizing the funds that are available to us to get 
the maximum amount of benefit, in the most efficient way possible, to 
identify the critical and emergency needs we have, and to try to 
address those in a way that helps guarantee the safety and security of 
our homeland.
  This is an important and very challenging task for the Senate. We 
appreciate the fact there are going to be differences of opinion and 
there are going to be suggestions made to increase this account or that 
account, reducing the funding for another, and that is what the Senator 
has proposed: that we add money for firefighter grants; that we take 
away money from other accounts in the bill, administration accounts. It 
is an easy vote to add money for a popular program. That is the easiest 
thing that we can do as a Representative or a Senator.
  I am not suggesting the amendment is offered just because it calls 
for an easy vote, because this amendment suggests not only adding money 
for a popular program, but it also offsets by cutting funds for some 
that may not be as popular or as well known or understood as well as 
the firefighter program.
  We all know firefighters. We know what they do. We know how 
heroically they performed on 9/11, and how much we depend on them every 
day. So we want to be sure they are well funded, that they have the 
training they need and the equipment they need, so we want to be 
generous.

  That is why I point out at the outset that Senator Frist and Senator 
Byrd, the former chairman of the full committee, the ranking Democrat 
on this subcommittee, and I joined in offering an amendment early in 
the consideration of this bill to increase firefighter assistance to 
$750 million. The bill now contains the level of funding that was 
included in last year's appropriations act for these purposes.
  If you look at the history of funding of these programs, the 
firefighter assistance grants alone have received over $2.1 billion in 
funding since fiscal year 2002.
  This does not reflect the resources that have been made available for 
fire departments through the basic State grant program or from State 
and local government support. They have, after all, the initial 
responsibility for these activities.
  The amendment suggests offsets that we cannot afford to take. We are 
going to put at risk the Department of Homeland Security's initiatives 
in many areas if these offsets are approved in this amendment. For 
example, the suggestion of the Senator from Connecticut would reduce 
the Under Secretary for Management by $70 million, the Information 
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate's account by $20 
million, and the Science and Technology Directorate's account by $10 
million.
  Buffer zone protection plans for critical infrastructure cannot be 
completed if the offset, cutting funds for the Infrastructure 
Protection Directorate, is approved. If the amendment is adopted, 
funding the Homeland Security Operations Center, which serves as the 
nerve center for sharing information across all levels of Government 
and the private sector, will be decimated.
  In addition, the Homeland Security Information Network will not be 
able to provide threat information to State and local government 
entities as they are expected to do without the funds that are cut out 
of the bill by the Dodd amendment.
  The management administration account, which is in the Science and 
Technology Directorate, provides the front line workers of the 
Directorate the funds for grants to university-based research 
facilities where many of the new technologies are being developed and 
designed, to more fully protect the safety and security of our 
homeland.
  An immediate freeze is called for in all Federal hiring. The cut 
would decrease management administration accounts below last year's 
level, significantly and adversely affecting the number of employees in 
the Science and Technology Directorate.
  The cut in funding could require a layoff of workers due to the 
reconfiguration and prioritization that is called for at that 
Directorate.
  I am hopeful the Senate will carefully review the effect of this 
amendment, the damage that it would do to programs that are already 
underway that have to do with threat vulnerability programs that we 
cannot afford to abandon at this point. We want to work with the 
firefighter programs and make sure the grant programs are continued. 
They are generously funded in this bill, as I have pointed out, and 
they have been. We will continue to defend them, and we will work in 
conference to try to accommodate some of the concerns the Senator has 
mentioned in his excellent remarks.
  For these and other reasons which I may state before we actually get 
to a vote on this amendment, I urge the Senate to vote against and 
reject the amendment proposed by Senator Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. If I may briefly respond, let me thank my colleague again. 
As I

[[Page S9171]]

said at the outset, he has a difficult job. Everyone has different 
ideas. I understand he has to balance all these.
  If I may respectfully challenge what he said on the offsets, because 
this is a critical question and obviously we have to pay for these 
initiatives. We took money from two different titles in this bill, 
Title I and Title IV.
  In Title I, which is where the bulk of the money would come from for 
the amendment, it would still leave an increase in the account of 35-
percent over last year. The offset reduces it from an 88 percent 
increase that is in the underlying legislation.
  I should mention at the outset, and I don't want to confuse our 
colleagues, that there are two separate proposals. One is the FIRE Act 
grant initiative, which the committee has been very supportive of, and 
I appreciate that. The bill has funding for $700 million for the FIRE 
Act grant program, which provides assistance for training and 
equipment. This amendment, however, is about personnel, which is a 
different issue. Our argument is that you can get a grant for new 
equipment, but it is meaningless if you don't have the personnel to do 
the job. That is why the SAFER bill is a top priority for the fire 
organizations.
  Second, when it comes to the Title IV offsets, you still leave the 
administrative and management dollars at a level higher than what is in 
the House-passed bill.
  So it is not bare-bones budgeting at all in this area. In those three 
categories, we are leaving more money than was in last year's budget, 
and at least as much as in the House-passed bill in either case.
  We did it very carefully with the full knowledge that you don't want 
to be robbing Peter to pay Paul, as the expression goes, or cut into 
other critical areas. So by reducing across the board in these 
management areas, bringing them down to levels that still are above 
what they were previously, we think we have come up with a very 
balanced approach that deals with a very serious problem, and that is 
the 20-percent decline in the number of personnel that is affecting 
paid and volunteer departments across the country. It is a glaring 
problem that even the U.S. Fire Administration, aside from what 
firefighters and fire chiefs are saying, believes is absolutely 
critical.
  Again, I thank my colleague from Mississippi for allowing me to bring 
up the amendment by having a unanimous consent to set aside pending 
amendments. If need be, Senator Specter may also want to share some 
comments before we finally vote on the matter. Would that be 
permissible?
  I understand that at a later time another Senator wants to talk on 
this before we actually vote. Would that be permissible?
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I think we 
have an opportunity for Senators to discuss these amendments out of 
order, if they would like. I don't think there would be any objection 
made to that.
  Mr. DODD. I thank the Senator.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, knowing that the Senator from New York 
wishes to offer an amendment, I am not going to talk long. But I want 
to make one observation. We ought not to be getting into the business 
in the Senate of deciding for States and localities how they spend this 
grant money or how they spend the SAFER Act money. We need to have the 
flexibility to make those decisions with State and local governments. 
If we start telling a fire department they have to buy equipment with 
this amount of money, that they have to train people with this other 
amount of money, they have to equip trucks and vehicles with this 
amount, this amount is for that or the other, we are making a big 
mistake.
  We are not the managers of these departments. We are not in the 
position to make the best decisions about how to efficiently use funds 
from Washington that will help our communities be safer and improve the 
quality of service provided by firefighters, law enforcement personnel, 
emergency management workers, or the rest. That is why the grant 
programs are broad and general. The States develop the plans for using 
the funds available to them from the Department of Homeland Security in 
many of these areas. It is the States and localities we ought to depend 
on to make the best decisions.
  If we did what the Senator from Connecticut is suggesting we do, we 
would get into the business of making these departments allocate funds 
for one category or one specific activity or the other, and that is a 
big mistake. Adopting this amendment flies right in the face of the 
administrative policies that this Department is trying to develop and 
implement, and it is working to make our communities safer because we 
are leaving the decisions to those who are in the best position to know 
what is needed in their communities.

  Do the firefighters need training in a certain area or another? I 
don't know the answer to that, if it applies to a fire department in my 
State. But the chief may know. He ought to know. He is in a better 
position to make the recommendations to the State officials as to what 
their needs are.
  These people are applying for these funds. They are having to set out 
how they propose to use them. At other levels of administration, the 
decision is made to assign priorities and which ones have a higher 
priority than another.
  That ought not to be made on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a 
mistake to get into the details as suggested by this amendment and take 
money away from activities that are ongoing, that are planned for this 
year, and then cut the funding for it. That is just going to make it 
more and more difficult to have a coherent, balanced approach to 
homeland security.
  We hope the Senate will reject the amendment of the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3631

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 3631.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To require the Secretary of Homeland Security to allocate 
    formula-based grants to State and local governments based on an 
 assessment of threats and vulnerabilities and other factors that the 
Secretary considers appropriate, in accordance with the recommendation 
                        of the 9/11 Commission)

       On page 19, line 21, insert ``, which shall be allocated 
     based on factors such as threat, vulnerability, population, 
     population density, the presence of critical infrastructure, 
     and other factors that the Secretary considers appropriate,'' 
     after ``grants''.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I again appreciate the courtesy of our 
chairman and colleague, the Senator from Mississippi. I also applaud 
him for taking on a heavy responsibility with respect to Homeland 
Security appropriations. I am going to be offering two amendments that 
I believe are necessary.
  This first amendment is intended to do what every expert who has 
looked at homeland security has recommended and advised us to do.
  Most recently, the 9/11 Commission reached the very same conclusion; 
that is, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should 
allocate formula-based State and local homeland security grants on the 
basis of threats and vulnerabilities and other factors that the 
Secretary deems appropriate.
  There are two major categories of grant money going from Washington 
out to the States and localities with respect to homeland security. One 
is called the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The other is the 
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant Program.
  As the Commission stated:

       We understand the contention that every State and city 
     needs to have some minimum

[[Page S9172]]

     infrastructure for emergency response. But Federal homeland 
     security assistance should not remain a program for general 
     revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local 
     resources based on the risks or vulnerability that merit 
     additional support. Congress should not use this money as a 
     pork barrel.

  The Commission, as we know, made a number of recommendations, some of 
which are being considered in other bills. We will have reports from 
some of the committees working on intelligence reform and the like. But 
this is a recommendation that we can and should act on now while we are 
debating and considering Homeland Security funding.
  Specifically, my amendment does not affect the State minimum in the 
bill. I would underscore that, because I know there are legitimate 
concerns on the part of my colleagues which I share.
  I represent a very diverse State. We have a lot of rural areas. We 
have a lot of open space up in particularly the northern part of the 
State and the western part of the State. I know very well that every 
State has legitimate needs. My bill does not affect the State 
minimum. It states that the grant funds above the State minimum should 
be allocated based on factors such as threat, vulnerability, 
population, population density, the presence of critical 
infrastructure, and other factors that the Secretary considers 
appropriate.

  In crafting this amendment, only the factors mentioned by the 9/11 
Commission were included, no more and no less.
  As my colleagues know, the 9/11 Commission recommended that an 
advisory committee be established to advise the Secretary on any 
additional factors that the Secretary of Homeland Security should 
consider, such as benchmarks for evaluating community homeland security 
needs. As the Commission stated in its report, ``the benchmarks will be 
imperfect and subjective, and they will continually evolve. But hard 
choices must be made. Those who would allocate money on a different 
basis should then defend their view of the national interest.
  Not only did the 9/11 Commission recommend that such changes be made 
in how Federal homeland security funds are allocated, but so did the 
other commissions that we quote in the Senate all the time, commissions 
such as the Homeland Security Independent Task Force of the Council on 
Foreign Relations, chaired by former Senator Warren Rudman. In fact, 
every homeland security expert I have talked to has said that the way 
the administration has chosen to allocate funding beyond the PATRIOT 
Act minimum--in other words, the State minimum that everybody will 
get--to allocate the additional funding beyond the minimum, on a per 
capita basis, simply makes no sense other than--I grant this--political 
sense. In this area of homeland security, we must, as the 9/11 
Commission urged us to do, leave our politics at the door.
  This should be a debate about what is in the best interests of our 
entire country, every region, and particularly on the basis of those 
threats and vulnerabilities that place certain parts of our country at 
greater risk than others.
  I am concerned because in the Senate report accompanying the bill 
that is now before the Senate, there is language that says Secretary 
Ridge must allocate funds beyond the all-State so-called PATRIOT 
minimum on a per capita basis. In other words, we are not even leaving 
it to chance. We are not even leaving it to the discretion of the 
Secretary. In the report language of this bill, we are directing, or 
certainly strongly urging, the Secretary to allocate that funding on a 
per capita basis. That is literally the antithesis of the September 11 
report, the Rudman task force. It is also the antithesis of what we 
have heard time and time again from Secretary Ridge and even from 
President Bush and homeland security experts.
  The Rudman task force unequivocally made clear that for the sake of 
homeland defense we must employ a better formula. Certainly, they 
reached the same conclusion as the 9/11 Commission. I am a little 
concerned we have report language in our Senate bill that goes so 
contrary to what everyone has said needs to be done.
  We have talked many times about the need for a better formula, and we 
should continue to talk about it until we actually do something. But it 
is discouraging to talk and not act and, in fact, to continue to go in 
a different direction.
  It is important when we make the decisions about this that we 
recognize--I am not just talking about New York or Washington, although 
they were specifically mentioned in the 9/11 Commission--there are 
other parts of our country that have critical infrastructure. For 
example, in southern Louisiana, we have a major port. We have offshore 
petroleum platforms. We have part of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
river road crossing, facilities pumping natural gas.

  Considering that complex critical infrastructure, I imagine the 
Secretary of Homeland Security might very well determine the State of 
Louisiana should get some extra threat-based funding in order to deal 
with what is a very real danger.
  We have communities such as Lancaster County, PA. We think of that as 
the home of the Amish and beautiful rolling countryside, but it also 
has two nuclear powerplants within the borders of that county. There 
are only five counties in the entire country that are in that position. 
Again, I argue that should be taken into account.
  None of this could be taken into account, however, if we follow the 
House bill or we follow the report language of the Senate bill and see 
where the Secretary is being directed to continue to distribute this 
money on a per capita basis.
  In closing, with respect to this amendment, it is simply long past 
time that we conclude that we must do something on a threat basis, and 
in order to do that, we need to give direction to the Secretary. He and 
I have had many conversations about this. He has expressed to me on 
many occasions his desire to provide threat-based funding, but his 
belief is that his hands are tied, because we continue to send the 
message to him and to the entire country we are going to distribute 
this money on a per capita basis.
  I ask that the pending amendment be laid aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3632

  Mrs. CLINTON. I send this amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mrs. Clinton], for herself and 
     Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 3632.

  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To appropriate an additional $625,000,000 for discretionary 
           grants for high-threat, high-density urban areas)

       On page 39, between lines 5 and 6, insert the following:
       Sec. 515. (a) It is the sense of the Senate that in 
     allocating Urban Area Security Initiative funds to high-
     threat, high-density urban areas, the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security should ensure that urban areas that face the 
     greatest threat receive Urban Area Security Initiative 
     resources commensurate with that threat.
       (b) The amount appropriated to the Office of State and 
     Local Government Coordination and Preparedness for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2005, for discretionary grants for 
     use in high-threat, high-density urban areas under title III 
     of this Act is increased by $625,000,000.

  Mrs. CLINTON. In addition to my first amendment, which would provide 
the Secretary with the discretion to distribute money above the State 
minimum, above the so-called PATRIOT Act minimum on the basis of 
threat, Senator Schumer and I offer this amendment to provide an 
additional $625 million for high-threat urban areas. This is a separate 
category of funding in homeland security in addition to the other two I 
mentioned.
  In this category, we know that the Secretary does have discretion, 
but what we have found is that over the last several years the 
discretion that he has felt obligated to exercise has meant less money 
going to more places as opposed to concentrating money on a threat 
analysis so we could really take care of the needs of particular areas 
and then move on down to take care of the needs of others.
  Last week, when Secretary Ridge spoke at the National Press Club, he 
said:


[[Page S9173]]


       I would tell you that we assess the level of terrorist 
     threat outside of Washington and New York, which will always 
     be at the top of the list. I mean, that's just a fact of 
     life. . . . I'm not telling you anything [new]. It's not 
     news.
       New York City, for obvious reasons--the impact on the 
     economy and al-Qaida has always talked about the disruption 
     or the undermining of our national economy. It's not just the 
     iconic nature of New York City. A lot of the stock exchanges, 
     the financial services community drives not only our national 
     economy but the international economy.
       And Washington, D.C., the nation's capital, will always be 
     targets.

  The 9/11 Commission and all the commissions before it, President 
Bush, and Secretary Ridge have all acknowledged the acute homeland 
security needs of high-threat urban areas, especially New York and 
Washington.
  I was delighted the recent Republican convention in New York went so 
well. Everyone seemed to have a great time in the greatest city in the 
world. The amount of work, the extraordinary expense of making it run 
so smoothly, was defrayed to some extent by Federal assistance, but to 
a large measure it reflected the ongoing investment that the people of 
the city of New York and the State of New York made in ensuring that we 
are always on high alert because, in fact, in New York City we are 
always on high alert.
  Yet despite that, last year, the Department of Homeland Security 
allocated only $47 million to the New York City area under the high-
threat program. They admit that was insufficient. Everyone who looked 
at it knows it is insufficient.

  Our mayor has come forth with a very scrubbed list of immediate needs 
that is in the area of about $600 million just for New York City. That 
is why I am offering this amendment along with my colleague. I 
recognize Secretary Ridge has the authority to allocate high-threat 
resources in the way he deems appropriate. But, unfortunately, there is 
not enough money in the pot for him to do the job he knows needs to be 
done. So my amendment expresses the sense of the Senate that in 
allocating resources under the Urban Area Security Initiative, the 
Secretary should allocate commensurate with the threat these areas 
face.
  Now, $47 million, which was the allocation last year to New York 
City, is a lot of money. But it pales in comparison to the $200 million 
the New York City Police Department alone spends on counterterrorism 
activities and the $1 billion in New York City's specific homeland 
security needs.
  My guess is many of our guests at the Republican Convention enjoyed 
the city in part because the police presence was so pervasive and the 
reputation of our firefighters so well deserved for courage and bravery 
that it was not a matter you needed to think much about. You could get 
out and enjoy the city and go back and forth to hotels and go out for 
meals and maybe even go to the theater. I was thrilled by that. I am 
always very happy when people come to New York City.
  But the very bottom line is, we are not getting adequate funding to 
be as prepared as we need to be. And other high-threat areas are also 
in the same position. I hope we are able to recognize these two 
amendments are real, commonsense amendments. They are aimed at making 
sure the money gets where it is most needed and at increasing the money 
that is specifically addressing high-threat urban areas. Because, 
unfortunately, we are playing a little bit of a shell game here. We are 
cutting money for first responders, which is why I strongly support the 
amendment from my colleague, the Senator from Connecticut.
  We are expecting those firefighters and police officers and emergency 
responders and emergency room doctors and nurses and others to be ready 
when we need them. Hopefully, we will not need them, but they better be 
ready if we do need them. Yet we are cutting money for first 
responders. The omnibus Byrd amendment that we failed to pass in the 
Senate last week tried to address that. It is unfortunate we are taking 
money away with one hand while we are giving it back with the other. 
But what we are giving back does not make up for either what was lost 
or what is needed.
  I hope we can address the continuing emergency needs when it comes to 
our first responders. There is nothing more important--I am told this 
all the time--than funding specifically for interoperable 
communications systems. Unfortunately, there is no money in this bill 
to help our first responders do that. This is something we have talked 
about now for 3 years. Our police and firefighters could not talk to 
each other in New York. This is a problem that happens all over the 
country. Yet we do not seem to address it.
  Again, the 9/11 Commission came forward with a good recommendation:

       [H]igh-risk urban areas such as New York City 
     and Washington, D.C., should establish single corps units 
     to ensure communications connectivity between and among 
     civilian authorities, local first responders, and the 
     National Guard. Federal funding of such units should be 
     given high priority by Congress.

  I hope we will do that before we finish this bill. I hope we can 
recognize that in most parts of our country that face these risks--
whether it is a tourist attraction such as Las Vegas or a large 
melting-pot city as Los Angeles or, of course, other cities of similar 
size and population density--having interoperable communications among 
and between first responders is essential to being able to deal with 
both threat and reality.
  We are on the lookout for potential terrorist activities and we need 
to be able to hope that all of our various law enforcement and 
firefighting responders and others are preventers as well as responders 
and are well equipped to do that. We can do the right thing by 
increasing the amount in the high-threat urban areas. If we put in the 
$625 million Senator Schumer and I are recommending in this amendment, 
we would bring the total appropriated amount to $1.5 billion. This is 
the amount I have been arguing for and fighting for in legislation I 
introduced back in January of this year. It is also in line with 
President Bush, according to his proposed fiscal year 2005 budget. In 
that budget, he called for $1,446,000,000 specifically for high-threat 
urban areas.
  So again, everybody seems to be in sync except our Congress. I do not 
understand that. I find it bewildering that we have the administration 
proposing this amount of money, we have every expert proposing this 
amount of money, but when it comes to action on the floor of the Senate 
and the House, somehow we do not do it. I hope my colleagues will 
support both of my amendments. I hope they will go along with the 9/11 
Commission report which has won broad bipartisan support. It is, 
apparently, the fastest selling paperback in the country. A lot of 
Americans are reading it, digesting it. It is not only a debate among 
experts and policy wonks and security gurus.
  There is now a debate that is happening out in America. And it is a 
life-or-death debate. It goes to the heart of whether we are serious 
about homeland security, whether we are going to put our dollars where 
our words have been, whether we are going to get the results we need so 
we can feel confident we have done everything we know to do.
  So I ask my colleagues for support of the two amendments I have 
offered today and, in keeping with the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, to do so in a broad bipartisan way that sends a signal to 
not only our Nation but to any who wish us ill anywhere in the world 
that we are vigilant, we are prepared, we are doing all we humanly know 
to do to prevent and deter attacks and respond effectively should one 
occur.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 3631

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am sure Senators are aware that the 
Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate has jurisdiction over the 
legislative authority, the law, creating the Department of Homeland 
Security. In that, legislation grant programs are described, allocation 
formulas are contained, that give guidance to the distribution of 
Federal funds to States and localities for various programs.
  The Senator from New York is suggesting, by her first amendment, that 
the appropriations bill that is before the Senate should be amended to 
change the way the grants are being given to States and localities. The 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has already addressed this issue. 
Hearings have been held. A review and consideration of various changes 
in the allocation process have all been reviewed. And the committee has 
acted.

[[Page S9174]]

They have reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee S. 
1245. That is a Senate bill called the Homeland Security Grant 
Enhancement Act. The act, as reported by the committee, will modify the 
formula for distributing domestic preparedness grants.
  If the Senate wants to take action as suggested by the Senator from 
New York, it can adopt that bill or amend it as may be suggested by the 
Senator from New York. That is the appropriate vehicle for revising 
first responder grant funding, not this appropriations bill. We are 
bound by the law. We are funding the programs authorized by the law. We 
are giving funds according to the priorities of that law. Every time we 
have an annual appropriations bill, we cannot change the way those 
formulas are written. That would be bad policy, bad practice, and it 
should not be followed in this instance on this issue.
  Every State in the Nation is entitled to a base level of Federal 
support for homeland security needs. A State's size or population does 
not necessarily reflect the level of danger to a State's population or 
to a city's population. Each State has the responsibility to make 
decisions that are designed to protect the property and the lives of 
its citizens, and they must allocate State resources--and local 
resources may be allocated as well--to train, equip, and maintain 
qualified first responders for those purposes.
  I believe the committee has done a very good job of analyzing and 
recognizing the needs of our larger and most threatened cities. In the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriations and the wartime supplemental, $850 
million was set aside for high-threat urban discretionary grants. In 
fiscal year 2004, in the appropriations bill, a further $725 million 
was set aside for these high-threat urban areas. The bill now before 
the Senate contains $875 million dedicated to high-threat urban 
discretionary grants. Taken together, this is over $2.4 billion just 
for the urban areas of our country. This is on top of the basic grant 
each State receives.
  The Department of Homeland Security has developed a model using 
classified information to allocate resources to major urban areas based 
on a combination of current threat estimates, critical assets within 
the urban area, as well as population density. The formula uses a 
combination of these factors to produce proportional resource 
allocations. Of the high-threat urban grant funding for fiscal year 
2004, over $79 million has gone to communities in New York State. Since 
the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, over $316 million 
has been made available to cities in New York. These funds are in 
addition to the dollars that were received by the State of New York 
through the basic State grants.
  In fiscal year 2004, more than $141 million in discretionary high-
threat funding has been allocated to communities in California. Since 
the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, more than $247 
million has been made available to the State of California. So the 
needs of our urban areas and the States with high population centers 
are already being addressed. But so, too, are those in other States of 
our great Nation.
  We should not come in on this bill today with this amendment and 
change the formula for the basic State grant program. That debate 
should occur when the Senate considers the Governmental Affairs 
Committee bill, S. 1245, which is now on the calendar of the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the first amendment of the Senator 
from New York.
  The second amendment the Senator has offered deals with Urban Area 
Security Initiative funding and suggests to the Senate that the amount 
available in the bill should be increased. In this bill, as in last 
year's appropriation, we have continued to provide funds specifically 
for the largest metropolitan areas that face the most risk. The Urban 
Area Security Initiative grant fund is distributed at the discretion of 
the Secretary of Homeland Security. I have mentioned that. It is based 
on current threat information and other factors. With the resources 
available, the bill makes the best use of these limited resources.
  Let me make that point again. These are limited resources. This 
committee has been allocated a certain amount of money, around $32 
billion, to provide funding for this next fiscal year for activities 
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and other 
agencies that are funded in this bill. With those limitations, choices 
have to be made. It would be good to be able to increase funding for 
all of the programs in this bill. They are all worthwhile programs or 
they would not be in the bill. They are all important activities. But 
at some point the committee has to make a decision. It has to say: This 
is the amount that is allocated for this next fiscal year for this 
particular account or program.

  This bill includes $875 million for the Urban Area Security 
Initiative. Since fiscal year 2003, including the amount provided here, 
over $2.4 billion will have been made available for the Urban Area 
Security Initiative. The Senator's amendment would add an additional 
$625 million, almost doubling the Urban Area Security Initiative, to 
this grant program.
  Because of the reasons I have cited, at the appropriate time, I will 
suggest that a point of order should lie against this amendment.
  Next let me read another provision of the committee report which I 
think will explain why it is important for us to reject this amendment:

       The Committee is concerned with the administration of the 
     funds available to assist the communities most in danger in 
     the United States. The continued expansion of the cities 
     eligible for this funding has the impact of diluting the 
     resources that have been made available, shortchanging those 
     communities with the most serious quantifiable threat. The 
     Committee believes the Department achieved a more optimal use 
     of the funds in fiscal year 2003. Further, the Committee 
     believes the Department's practice over the past two fiscal 
     years, to allocate the full amount appropriated for the 
     program at one time near the beginning of the year, leaves 
     the Department with little ability to respond to new or 
     updated intelligence or recent terrorist threats. 
     Consequently, the Committee recommends that at least 10 
     percent of the funds appropriated for the program be reserved 
     to meet any needs over the course of the fiscal year 
     warranted by more current threat information and 
     intelligence. Any reserve funds remaining at the beginning of 
     the last quarter of the fiscal year shall be released to 
     fiscal year 2005 grant recipients as determined by the 
     Secretary.

  It is my hope that the Senate will reject both of the amendments 
offered by the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New York.


                           Amendment No. 3632

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment 
introduced by my colleague and friend, Senator Clinton, and me. It 
doesn't take money away from anybody else. It simply increases the 
amount of money to the high-needs areas. There are lots of ways to skin 
this cat. It is clear that the areas most under threat, cities such as 
New York City, the No. 1 target, as we know, of the terrorists, need 
far more help than we get. I think there has been a general outcry by 
the 9/11 Commission and many others that it is so unfair to give, say, 
the State of Wyoming more on a per-capita basis than New York City gets 
in terms of terror. I don't doubt the need Wyoming has for dollars. But 
if Wyoming has the need for dollars, certainly New York has a greater 
need for dollars.
  What we have done with this amendment, which is one way to do it, is 
to simply increase the high-needs area. It does not touch the general 
formula but, rather, goes to high needs.
  Let me share a little history about this high-needs area. As you may 
know, when we first were setting up this formula, I spent a lot of time 
negotiating with the White House as to how we would allocate money. 
Then the point person for the White House was the Secretary of OMB, 
Mitch Daniels. We came to the conclusion that obviously every State 
needed some money. And knowing how the House and Senate work, we 
weren't going to get a formula which would send money to the 5 or 10 
largest cities or the 5 or 10 largest focal points. So we negotiated 
the formula in two parts.
  The first was the general formula, and there was a specific need for 
every State and taking care of those States. Now, the remainder of that 
formula, which we are not discussing now, was supposed to be allocated 
by discretion by the administration. They basically punted the ball and 
did that on a per capita basis.

[[Page S9175]]

  I ask unanimous consent that I be given an additional 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. COCHRAN. I will not object. I have a unanimous consent request to 
make.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 
today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski 
amendment No. 3624, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior 
to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided 
for debate prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Schumer has asked for 5 minutes and 
I have no objection to that. The other Senator from New York may wish 
additional time.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10 minutes.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I have no objection.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from New York wishes 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we had the high-needs formula, which 
really didn't do justice to the areas that had the highest needs. We 
came up with this high-needs formula.
  Frankly, the first year it worked quite well and quite fairly. The 
bottom line is that, of the high-needs allocation the first year, which 
I believe was $700 million, New York City, the city that has been the 
focus of both terrorist attacks, received $225 million. While still on 
a per capita basis, we were not getting what we thought was a fair 
share, it certainly came a lot closer.
  But what has happened is two things. First, on the high-needs 
formula, other localities came in and asked for money. They said they 
are a high-needs area. The number of cities last year that were under 
the high-needs rubric expanded. The first year it was a handful, the 
next year it was 30, and last year it was 50. So now lots of localities 
are competing for this high-needs money. That is fine. I am not one to 
begrudge that. I think we are not doing enough on homeland security, 
and this is one place we should be spending more dollars.
  We are not trying to take away money from the high-needs area. I 
remind my colleagues that the amendment we are offering will apply to a 
larger number of cities than first proposed. But the bottom line is 
very simple; that is, once the high-needs funding was spread among many 
cities, the cities of the greatest need, such as New York and 
Washington, did not get the dollars they needed. Over the last 3 years, 
the amount of money that New York City has received has shrunk and 
shrunk and shrunk. The bottom line is very simple: We are not getting 
what we need.
  Let me talk about some of the needs in New York City. I live in 
Brooklyn, a proud Brooklynite. We have the Brooklyn Bridge, which 
crosses from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Every time I cross that bridge--
usually by car and once in a while on a bicycle--there are two police 
officers at each end of the bridge. That bridge is guarded 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week, as it must be. We picked up somebody in Ohio a few 
years ago who was intent on trying to destroy that bridge. Well, that 
is 20 police officers, because it is five shifts of four people. 
Multiply that by the number of bridges and tunnels comparable to the 
Brooklyn Bridge in New York and that shows you the magnitude of what we 
are doing.
  It is the same thing with our firefighters and our emergency 
responders and our hospitals. All of them have had to do so much more 
because our city is at the epicenter more, quite frankly, than a 
hospital, police department, or a firefighting department in a middle-
sized city in the middle of America, which doesn't have to do quite 
what we do. My guess is that bridges in Omaha, or Wichita, or 
Albuquerque are not guarded by two police officers at either end for 24 
hours a day, 7 days a week; nor should they be. But they have to be in 
New York.
  We will do everything we can to prevent another 9/11. Yet as we have 
gone further along, the amount of money New York City has been given 
has decreased. I know there are other cities that have needs. I worked 
hard to see that Buffalo was included in this formula, with $10 
million. A few other cities in upstate New York have problems.
  So there are only two ways to go about solving this problem. One is 
to rob Peter to pay Paul, to reallocate the funds that are there. That 
is not this amendment. We don't touch that. The other is to increase 
the high-needs funding, so the cities that are under the greatest 
threat and the greatest danger can at least be reimbursed in greater 
part. Certainly, we won't be made whole for the homeland security 
efforts that we must undertake.
  We heard a few months ago, when we picked up the new intelligence, 
what the areas were they were focusing on: Washington, DC, and the New 
York City metropolitan area; five buildings, two in DC, two in 
Manhattan, and one in northern New Jersey. Again, we can bring home the 
need to focus that should be here. Yet we are not doing it.
  Let me tell you, if you think we don't have the money, we are going 
to spend $416 billion on defense this year. We are only spending $33 
billion on homeland security in toto. We are spending less than $2 
billion on helping our first responders, on helping our localities that 
have worked so hard and so well to defend us from terrorism. It would 
seem to me that any fair allocation of dollars would be giving New York 
City more money, giving some of the other cities more money.
  Let me go over the numbers. Last year, New York's share of high-needs 
areas dropped to 9 percent. We didn't receive 9 percent of the attacks. 
Thus far--and I hope there are no more anywhere in America--we received 
100 percent of the two terrorist attacks that have occurred.
  Our city, as I say, is struggling. We have needs like everybody else. 
We have a great police department, a great fire department, a great EMT 
department, and great hospitals. But they cannot do it alone. So it is 
my hope that our colleagues will rise to the occasion.
  This money, as I say, will not just benefit New York but other cities 
of high needs throughout the country. Let's stop underfunding this very 
needed program. Let's stop saying let the other guy do it. In a time of 
terrorism, we need leadership. This amendment represents leadership, 
and I hope we can get the sufficient number of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the points 
made by the chairman of the subcommittee. I start by saying that as I 
understand the underlying legislation from the House, there is no 
language, either legislative or report, that addresses how the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should distribute the 
funding above the small State minimum.
  The language that my amendment is addressing specifically appears in 
the report to the Senate bill. So I want everyone to understand that I 
agree every State should receive a minimum level of funding. I think 
that is not only politically necessary, it is appropriate and fair.
  Based on the calculation of that funding, about 38 percent of all of 
the homeland security funding in the two biggest grant categories for 
the State homeland security grants and the terrorism prevention grants 
will go across the board on a per capita basis to all the States. So 
everybody will get a per capita basis that they can then use to meet 
their homeland security needs.
  Now, the remaining 62 percent of the money is what my formula 
amendment is addressing. At the very least, the Senate should not be, 
in report language, recommending that the Department of Homeland 
Security also distribute the funding on a per capita basis. That runs 
absolutely counter to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 
9/11 Commission said do away with small State minimums, do away with 
any kind of per capita funding, begin to distribute this money on the 
basis of risk and threat. Yet we get a committee recommendation from 
our Senate committee which basically recommends that the funds that are 
used consistent with each State's homeland security strategy are to be 
allocated on a per capita basis.

[[Page S9176]]

  So it is not only that we are failing to change the formula to comply 
with the 9/11 Commission, we are directing the Department of Homeland 
Security not to comply with the 9/11 Commission.
  I am not saying take the money away from all the States and direct it 
where it is most needed. I am not going the full place that the 9/11 
Commission has set out for us. I am recognizing the political reality 
and the fairness of allocating money to every State. At the very least, 
let us not direct the Department of Homeland Security to distribute the 
money above the small State minimum on a per capita basis. So I hope we 
could remove that language, and my formula amendment would do that.
  Secondly, we cannot wait for the Governmental Affairs Committee to 
come forward with their authorization. I stood on this floor months ago 
and said we needed to change the risk and threat analysis in order to 
distribute the money more effectively. The very effective chairwoman of 
that committee came down to the floor and said: We are working on a 
change of formula. Work with us. Let us get the authorization changed.
  We have been waiting for that bill ever since. There is no 
authorization. The only opportunity we have to begin to try to focus 
our efforts on homeland security to address the kind of threats that we 
face is in this appropriations. In fact, the door has been opened 
because in this appropriations bill coming from the House, they talk 
about a PATRIOT Act minimum, and then the Senate committee goes one 
step forward and says above that minimum do not direct it any other way 
except per capita.
  So I understand very well that everybody has to look out for his or 
her own State, but on this matter we have to put the money where the 
threat is, and the threat is in places such as New York and Washington. 
Every committee, every commission that has looked at this has come to 
the same conclusion.
  So I look forward to working with the chairman to make it possible to 
distribute the money on a threat-based analysis as opposed to directing 
the Department to distribute the money above the small State minimum, 
62 percent of the money, also on a per capita basis.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________