[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 12 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1117-S1119]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself and Mr. Corzine):
  S. 308. A bill to require that Homeland Security grants related to 
terrorism preparedness and prevention be awarded based strictly on an 
assessment of risk, threat, and vulnerabilities; to the Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on a matter of 
great significance to our State and to many States across the country: 
protecting our homeland from another terrorist attack.
  Everyone is aware of how difficult the fight is against terrorism, 
wherever it takes place in the world, and the number of casualties we 
have experienced in Iraq, that manifests itself in Afghanistan and 
different countries. But one place we ought to be looking at in terms 
of protecting ourselves from terror is in the United States. We should 
not be skimping on the costs or resources available for Homeland 
Security. My colleague Senator Corzine and I today are introducing a 
bill to ensure that Federal Homeland Security funds get sent where they 
are needed most.
  On September 11, 2001, 700 of the people who lost their lives were 
from New Jersey. On that terrible day, people of north Jersey could see 
the smoke rising from the World Trade Center. From my own home, I look 
directly at the World Trade Center. In my pre-Senate day, I was 
commissioner of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and had 
offices in the Trade Center and know what the hustle and bustle of life 
was there. Thousands and thousands of people were working in those two 
buildings, destroyed by a terrorist that went beyond the wildest 
imagination.
  The New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of those attacks on 
September 11. It continues to be the most at-risk area. We are not the 
only ones at risk. States such as Virginia, with their military 
installation, their ports, are also to be included, and a place of some 
threat, New Mexico, with Los Alamos, and Florida with its ports, and 
Texas with their ports. All of these States have to be on the alert all 
the time and need funds with which to protect themselves. So I hope we 
can all agree that homeland security funding ought to be targeted to 
those parts of the country most at risk of another terrorist attack.

  Now, the 9/11 Commission agrees with this approach. They said:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly--

  ``Strictly''--

     on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

  They further say:

       [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a 
     program for general revenue sharing.

  I think we are all agreed they did a splendid job. This was a focal 
point for them. The 9/11 Commission reported homeland security money is 
too important to be caught up in porkbarrel politics. Unfortunately, 
our current homeland security funding is not based on risks and 
threats.
  Under current law, 40 percent of all State homeland security grants, 
over $1 billion each year, are given out as revenue sharing. The system 
results in preposterous funding allocations.
  For example, this year, New Jersey's homeland security grant was cut, 
reduced by 34 percent. I remind those who are listening, New Jersey 
lost 700 of its citizens. Our funding was cut despite the fact that we 
in New Jersey were under a code orange alert from August 1 to just 
after the election because of unspecified threats against the 
Prudential Building in Newark. The Prudential Building is a center of 
major financial activity and was highlighted as one of five locations 
that ought to be especially guarded. Yet the city of Newark saw its 
funding cut by 17 percent. Another high-risk urban area, Jersey City--
which is directly across from where the Trade Centers were in New York, 
and where so much of the rescue activity was directed, with police from 
that area, emergency response people--Jersey City saw its funding cut 
60 percent. That does not make sense.
  The FBI has identified a 2-mile strip between the Port of Newark and 
Newark-Liberty International Airport as the most at-risk area in the 
entire country for a terrorist attack--a 2-mile stretch, highly 
visible. If you fly into Newark-Liberty Airport, you see the bustling 
port that we have there and the activity that goes on. It is an area, 
certainly, that would represent, in the FBI's view, one of the most 
appealing targets for terror. Yet the area's homeland security funding 
was cut. It defies sense.
  The system is broken. That is why my colleague, Senator Corzine, and 
I are introducing the Risk-Based Homeland Security Funding Act, to 
require that homeland security grants are allocated solely based on 
risk and threat to the area.
  Our bill would take the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and turn 
them into law.
  President Bush understands that risk and vulnerability must be the 
principal yardsticks for distributing homeland security funds. In the 
fiscal year 2006 budget just released, President Bush stated that 
homeland security funds need to be allocated on risks, threats, and 
vulnerabilities.
  So I hope our colleagues will support the bill Senator Corzine and I 
are introducing today. Our bill will set the gold standard for 
determining whether homeland security grants are being properly 
allocated. I ask my colleagues to think of this as a national interest, 
to make sure that none of the areas of high vulnerability are open to 
attack any more than we can possibly do to prevent it because any 
attack in these areas will have a ripple effect throughout the country. 
Again, these places are an invitation to the terrorists. As much as we 
hate them, we know these people are not fools. We know they plan these 
things. We know they look for the most vulnerable targets. And we 
should not permit those targets to go without the protection they fully 
deserve.
  So I hope our colleagues will support this bill. It would turn the 9/
11 Commission's recommendations into law.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 308

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Risk-Based Homeland Security 
     Funding Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress agrees with the recommendation on page 396 of the 
     Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks 
     Upon the United States (commonly known as the ``9/11 
     Report''), which includes the following:
     ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. . . . [F]ederal 
     homeland security assistance should not remain a program for 
     general revenue sharing. It should supplement state and local 
     resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit 
     additional support. Congress should not use this money as a 
     pork barrel.''.

     SEC. 3. RISK-BASED HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDING.

       (a) Criteria for Awarding Homeland Security Grants.--Except 
     for grants awarded under any of the programs listed under 
     section 4(b), all homeland security grants related to 
     terrorism prevention and terrorism preparedness shall be 
     awarded based strictly on an assessment of risk, threat, and 
     vulnerabilities, as determined by the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security.
       (b) Limitation.--Except for grants awarded under any of the 
     programs listed under section 4(b), none of the funds 
     appropriated for Homeland Security grants may be used for 
     general revenue sharing.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1014(c)(3) of the USA 
     PATRIOT ACT (42 U.S.C. 3714(c)(3)) is repealed.

     SEC. 4. PRESERVATION OF PRE-9/11 GRANT PROGRAMS FOR TRADITION 
                   FIRST RESPONDER MISSIONS .

       (a) Savings Provision.--This Act shall not be construed to 
     affect any authority to award grants under a Federal grant 
     program listed under subsection (b), which existed on 
     September 10, 2001, to enhance traditional missions of State 
     and local law enforcement, firefighters, ports, emergency 
     medical services, or public health missions.
       (b) Programs Excluded.--The programs referred to in 
     subsection (a) are the following:
       (1) The Firefighter Assistance Program authorized under 
     section 33 of the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 
     1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229).

[[Page S1118]]

       (2) The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program and 
     the Urban Search and Rescue Grant Program authorized under--
       (A) title VI of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
     Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5195 et seq.);
       (B) the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and 
     Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations 
     Act, 2000 (Public Law 106-74; 113 Stat. 1047 et seq.); and
       (C) the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 (42 U.S.C. 
     7701 et seq.).
       (3) The Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Programs authorized under part E of 
     title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 
     1968 (42 U.S.C. 3750 et seq.).
       (4) The Public Safety and Community Policing (COPS ON THE 
     BEAT) Grant Program authorized under part Q of title I of the 
     Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
     3796dd et seq.).
       (5) Grant programs under the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 201 et seq.) regarding preparedness for bioterrorism 
     and other public health emergencies;
       (6) The Emergency Response Assistance Program authorized 
     under section 1412 of the Defense Against Weapons of Mass 
     Destruction Act of 1996 (50 U.S.C. 2312).
       (7) Grant programs under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster 
     Relief and Emergency Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).

  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, 
Senator Lautenberg, in both support and the introduction of the Risk-
Based Homeland Security Funding Act. I think this is simply urgent. It 
is fundamental to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, as 
Senator Lautenberg mentioned.
  Quoting language that was in that Commission report:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

  Quoting further:

       [F]ederal homeland security assistance should not remain a 
     program for general revenue sharing.

  In fact, I believe we should relabel the bill. I had a little 
argument with my colleague from New Jersey. I think we ought to call it 
the Common Sense Homeland Security Act. It is only common sense. I 
think there is a consensus among all those who seriously contemplate 
this issue that we need to be smart and strategic about how we allocate 
our limited homeland security resources.
  This is not a local issue, although people will often argue that we 
are trying to speak only from parochial interests. I think you have to 
think about this as protecting America where we are most vulnerable. It 
is a national issue.
  Our economic assets are at stake. In New Jersey, that 2-mile stretch 
Senator Lautenberg spoke about in his comments has the Port of Newark, 
which is really what is often labeled the Port of New York. Mr. 
President, 80 percent of all of the incoming cargo containers that come 
into that east coast port are in Newark and Elizabeth. So you hear 
about the Port of New York and New Jersey. It is really the Port of New 
Jersey and Elizabeth. And that is in that 2-mile stretch.
  Then on the other end of that 2-mile stretch is Liberty International 
or Newark Airport, which is, depending on which year and the number of 
flight landings, the third or fourth busiest airport in America--the 
busiest airport in the metropolitan region of New York and New Jersey.
  In between, there are rail lines, chemical plants, oil refineries, 
all the economic assets that are important to the economic distribution 
of assets across the east coast.
  It is incredible, as Senator Lautenberg talked about, that this 
particular area is seeing these cuts. Newark is getting cut 17 percent 
from 2004 to 2005, and, unbelievably, Jersey City is getting cut 64 
percent, from $17 million down to about $6 million in homeland 
security, State, and local grants. It is very hard to justify. You look 
at your constituents and say we are talking about the threat-based 
allocation of risk, and we see these kinds of cuts given the kind of 
serious concerns that we have.
  It is a national issue, it is not just a New Jersey issue because if 
that airport and that port come down, it has a major long-term impact 
on the economy of the Nation. It is important. I note, as Senator 
Lautenberg did, the Senator from Virginia has ports that have a major 
impact on more than just Virginia's economic well-being. The airports 
have more than just an economic impact on the individual State. We have 
to think about what the ripple impact is as we go forward. So we have 
to prioritize.
  I am pleased the President cited almost the same language in his 
budget yesterday. Concentrating Federal funds for State and local 
homeland security assistance programs on the highest threats and 
vulnerabilities and needs is the Presidential goal. We need to 
translate that into specific legislative authority so we do not come up 
with formulas that are revenue sharing based.

  Forty percent of the funds currently allocated are based on just 
equal allocation to the States. Nice idea, but we ought to do that in 
other areas, not with regard to homeland security where we ought to 
deal with the national economy, the national strategic interests of the 
country. So I hope we can take this act, this commonsensical approach, 
and implement it.
  By the way, I also wonder why we are cutting 30 percent to our State 
and local communities. The first responders are the first line of 
defense in protecting the American people and in responding to these 
attacks. We certainly saw that in the 9/11 case.
  I hope we can have a strong debate in Congress about how we are 
allocating within the expenditures we have with regard to homeland 
security. In my view, there is too much ignoring of the reality of the 
need to fund our local responders, making sure their communications 
equipment can talk to each other, making sure they have the kinds of 
equipment that would be able to respond, as was so heroically done by 
the people who responded to the 9/11 tragedy.
  All this has to be put in the context of real-life experiences, 
though. And Senator Lautenberg talked about that. Seven hundred people 
in our community died. This is a hot issue in the State of New Jersey 
because it impacted families, and it still is very much a live part of 
their community. People want to see action. They want to see changes as 
we go forward. And they want to see us be particularly focused on those 
places where there are risks.
  It is hard for New Jerseyans to understand when you put the city of 
Newark on the highest alert, singled out, along with New York City and 
Washington, DC, one day, and then get your homeland security funds cut 
by 20 percent or so 6 months later when the allocation comes out 
according to a formula, as apposed to thinking about where risks are. 
It is hard for the people not only in Newark, but we have Hamilton, NJ, 
which had a post office that was the site where all the anthrax letters 
were sent out. We had to shut it down. We spent $60 million cleaning up 
that post office, just like we had to clean up the Hart Building here 
in Washington.
  And people say, I do not really understand why we are not concerned 
about what is going on with regard to risk in New Jersey when we have 
these kinds of practical realities: 700 of our citizens, orange alerts 
for Newark, Hamilton post office, and I could go on and on. There are a 
number of instances--Atlantic City, where the way the formula works is, 
if you are not a town of 225,000 people, you do not get considered for 
these grants. We have about 40,000 people in Atlantic City, but that 
does not take into account the people who come and visit there, which 
is about 100,000 on average a day; and then all the people who work 
there, which is about another 40,000. So you are getting up toward 
those numbers. And on peak days it can be 300,000 people. It is the 
second highest concentration of casinos in the country.
  I think we need to bring common sense to where we are focusing 
homeland security dollars. I think that is what this act is about. I am 
thrilled that we have Michael Chertoff who is stepping in as the 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. I do not think there 
is a smarter guy, a more objective, intellectually honest individual. I 
think he will push forward with commonsense approaches to allocation 
and recommendations.
  Finally, this bill does not cover other programs. It does not include 
the COPS Program, fire grants, other things where you need to be 
reflective of the needs of general revenue sharing approaches. This is 
dealing with homeland security the same way we deal

[[Page S1119]]

with national security. There we identify what we think the threats are 
and apply the resources to match those needs.
  We need to bring common sense to this. I hope my colleagues will 
support this legislation. It is very straightforward and a simple 
reflection of the 9/11 Commission Report, a reflection of the words the 
President put in his budget report. I think it is appropriate as to how 
we should move forward with regard to funding for homeland security 
allocations.
                                 ______