[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 62 (Thursday, May 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5099-S5101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Lautenberg, Mrs. 
        Hutchison, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Corzine, Mr. Schumer, Mrs. Clinton, 
        Mr. Nelson of Florida, and Mr. Kennedy):
  S. 1013. A bill to improve the allocation of grants through the 
Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Homeland 
Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. I am pleased to be joined by my 
colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, as well as Senators 
Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Corzine, Schumer, Clinton and Senator 
Nelson of Florida.
  It is time that Congress ensures that funding to bolster the security 
of our nation goes to where the threat is the greatest.
  Unfortunately, billions of dollars in homeland security funds to 
states and local communities--including $3.6 billion in fiscal year 
2005--are now being distributed to areas that are not at the greatest 
risk of terrorist attack.
  To do this, we need to adopt risk-based analysis to determine where 
our homeland security funding goes, rather than continue with the 
present system of ad hoc determinations, ``small-state minimums'' and 
poorly understood decision-making, that leave some targets exposed to 
threats while sending resources to places where there is little chance 
of terrorist attack.
  This legislation will ensure that priorities are set according to 
analysis of risk and threat. Specifically it directs the Secretary of 
Homeland Security to allocate funding to homeland security grants based 
on risk analysis.
  This is the core of the bill, and I believe it is so important that I 
will quote in full the operative language, which appears in the very 
first substantive section of the legislation: ``The Secretary shall 
ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an 
assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum 
extent practicable.''
  This direction covers the four major first-responder grant programs 
administered by Department of Homeland Security in addition to grants 
for seaport and airport security--called ``covered grants'' in the 
bill, including: 1. the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 2. the 
Urban Area Security Initiative; 3. the Law Enforcement Terrorism 
Prevention Program; and 4. the Citizens Corps Program.
  Reduces the ``small state minimum'' to 25 percent per State. Current 
practice requires each state to get .75 percent of much of the grant 
funding. That means 37.5 percent of the funds are marked for 
distribution before any risk analysis.
  Requires grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' 
Essential capabilities are what we get for the money spent--the ability 
to address the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and by 
diminishing the consequences of such an attack by effective response.
  Ensures that States quickly and effectively pass on Federal funds to 
where they are needed so that Federal funds are not held back.
  The bottom line is this: if Federal funds are going to be distributed 
to improve our national ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, 
or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds 
should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis.
  In this post-Cold War world of asymmetric threat there are two 
fundamental principles we should apply to efforts to make our nation 
more secure against a terrorist attack: the first is that understanding 
and predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis.
  It is an uncomfortable fact that, even with the best intelligence, we 
will never know exactly how, when and where terrorists will strike--the 
best we can do is try to assess risks and threats, and make 
predictions.
  The second principle is that our defense resources are finite.
  The total amount of money, time and personnel that can be devoted to 
homeland security is limited. That means tough choices have to be made 
by both the Congress, and by Executive Branch officials at the Federal, 
State and Local level.
  Together these two principles define what we need to do for our 
Nation: accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist 
attacks; measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, 
and then allocate our resources based on that assessment.
  Three years ago, we created the Department of Homeland Security in an

[[Page S5100]]

effort to create an institution that could perform this task.
  The core element of the new Department was to be the Information 
Assessment and Infrastructure Protection Directorate, which would 
``merge under one roof the capability to identify and assess current 
and future threats to the homeland, map those threats against our 
vulnerabilities, issue timely warnings and take preventive and 
protective action.''
  We are failing in this effort.
  The 9/11 Commission agreed, finding that ``nothing has been harder 
for officials--executive or legislative than to set priorities, making 
hard choices in allocating limited resources.''
  The Commission concluded, ``Homeland security assistance should be 
based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.''
  This bill does just that.
  The New York Times, an editorial published last month, titled ``Real 
Security, or Politics as Usual?'' agreed:

       Any terrorist who has followed how domestic security money 
     is distributed in this country must be encouraged by the 
     government's ineptness . . . The current formula is based in 
     part on population, rather than risk, and contains state 
     minimums, so even sparsely populated states that hardly have 
     a plausible terrorism target are raking in money. This is the 
     formula that gave Wyoming seven times more domestic security 
     money per capita than New York . . . If there were a 
     successful attack on Wall Street or the ports of Los Angeles 
     and Long Beach, it would be a blow to the whole nation. 
     Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is 
     not parochialism; it is defending America.

  Despite these recommendations, we find again and again that scarce 
resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security.
  For instance, Congress has established a ``small State minimum'' 
designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of 
scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability.
  As a result, in fiscal year 2004 Wyoming spent $37.52 per capita with 
homeland security grants, while California and Texas spent $8.75 and 
$6.93 respectively.
  The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department 
of Homeland Security Inspector General's report found that in the 
critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with 
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.''
  The result is the ``funding of projects with low [risk and 
vulnerability] scores.''
  A recently issued report from the Center for Security Studies and the 
Heritage Foundation found that there is:

     no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and 
     divorced from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources 
     available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting 
     the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set 
     priorities.

  This bill is a first step to reducing threats of terrorist attack, 
but Congress can not do it alone.
  The Department of Homeland Security must embrace not only the concept 
of risk-based allocation, but also the practical aspects of the 
discipline. That means improving the intelligence analysis and 
vulnerability assessment functions of the Department.
  We also need to follow through on last year's intelligence reform 
efforts, since the product of the Intelligence Community--analysis of 
the plans, intentions and capabilities of terrorist groups--is the key 
element in an effective risk analysis.
  This will not be easy. There are lots of vested interests who will 
oppose such efforts. But our nation's safety is at sake. It is time to 
put aside pork-barrel politics and a Cold War mentality and get to 
work.
  Last year Representatives Cox and Turner, the Chair and Ranking 
Member, respectively, of the other body's Homeland Security Committee 
put forth similar legislation.
  That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the 
Intelligence Reform Bill, but was dropped at conference--that bill has 
been reintroduced, and is scheduled for consideration on the floor of 
the House this week.
  This bill is based on Chairman Cox's efforts, and with a few 
exceptions tracks it closely.
  However, unlike the House bill, this bill makes an across-the-board 
reduction of the small-State minimum to .25 percent--the House bill 
retains a sliding scale that I believe will have the effect of 
undercutting its risk-based approach.
  In this body, Senators Collins and Lieberman have been working to 
craft risk-based legislation, which was recently reported favorably by 
the Senate Homeland Security Committee.
  I hope that the bill introduced today will be accepted by Senators 
Collins and Lieberman in the spirit in which it was drafted--as a 
reasoned alternative to their approach, and as a starting point for 
further discussions.
  It is my hope that Congress will act quickly to pass this 
legislation. We cannot afford to wait until it is too late.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleague, 
Senator Dianne Feinstein of California and other of our distinguished 
colleagues in introducing The Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 
2005.
  I would like to thank Senator Feinstein for her collaboration in 
crafting this legislation. I know that she has thoughtfully examined 
the current state of our Homeland Security Funding and the many other 
interrelated issues, and I thank her for her fine leadership as we work 
together exploring ways to better protect our country.
  We say it often, and it is true: ``9/11 changed everything.'' The 
attacks of that day were unprecedented in our history, and they brought 
with them the need for similarly unprecedented security measures. In an 
effort to respond quickly to the devastation that was wrought upon our 
country, the Federal Government created a system that worked to raise 
overall national emergency preparedness to ensure we could better guard 
against another such terrorist attack.
  And so we embarked on the task of shoring up our airline, 
transportation, border, and port security. We worked to protect our 
critical infrastructure, to protect our cyber security, our agriculture 
and food supply systems.
  But taxpayer dollars are not limitless, and Congress must work to 
ensure every penny be directed where it will do the most good. It is 
imperative that we guard the places across our nation where terrorists 
may strike and where such strikes could do the most damage to our 
people, our government, and our national economy. We believe this is 
the most responsible way to prepare for any future terrorist attack.
  We need to have a system that will protect our most vulnerable 
population centers, and that recognizes the need to protect the 
critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy. I 
am reminded of a recent tour I took of several Texas seaports. I 
visited with port directors, industry leaders, and emergency responders 
in and around the ports of Houston, Beaumont, and Corpus Christi. They 
have enormous security needs and the consequences of a terrorist attack 
on any of these facilities would be devastating, not only to the local 
communities, but to the economic engine of the whole country.
  The legislation that Senator Feinstein and I now propose would 
require that Federal Homeland Security funds be allocated to states 
according to a risk-based assessment. It is vital that we better 
allocate our limited resources to the vulnerable places in the country 
we most need to protect, and that that these funds are distributed in 
an efficient and timely manner.
  Senator Feinstein and I have evaluated the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations that call for allocation of money based on 
vulnerabilities, and our legislation provides for a distribution 
formula for homeland security grants based on three main criteria: 
Threat, vulnerability, and consequence. This would require states to 
quickly pass on federal funds to where they are most needed. This bill 
is inspired by the hard work and examination done on this issue by our 
colleagues in the House and Senate. We have also taken input from 
stakeholders in our respective States and from across the country. It 
is our hope and intention that by introducing this bill we can 
contribute and enrich the public discourse on this critical issue and 
help move the Nation toward a more rational and effective distribution 
of our homeland security resources.
  Key provisions of this bill include: establishing a First Responder 
Grant Board, consisting of Department of

[[Page S5101]]

Homeland Security leadership, that will rank and prioritize grant 
applications based on threat and vulnerability. Enabling a region that 
encompasses more than one State to apply for funds. The money would 
still pass through the States, but would go to the region to better 
enable coordination and planning. Provides greater flexibility in using 
the funds, allowing a State to use them for other hazards consistent 
with federally established capability standards. And it allows States 
to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are 
penalties for States that do not pass funds to local governments within 
45 days, and if a State fails to pass the funds through, local 
governments may petition the Department of Homeland Security to receive 
the funds directly.
  Continuing to spread Homeland Security funds throughout the Nation 
irrespective of the actual risk to particular States and communities 
would be to ignore much of what we have learned as part of our effort 
to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of September 11. So I 
would urge that we swiftly work to pass this legislation, to better 
ensure the safety of our citizens.
                                 ______