[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 12, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8111-S8131]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be 90 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Collins and Feinstein amendments.
  Who seeks time?
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. I yield myself 20 minutes from the time allocated for the 
proponents of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

[[Page S8112]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent--I think Senator Feinstein has 
agreed--that I be given 10 minutes immediately after the Senator from 
Texas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the debate on the competing amendments, 
the Collins-Lieberman amendment and the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment, 
before I get into the body of my remarks, I want to address some 
criticism that was lodged at the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. I believe 
reference was made to the amendment as being ``cobbled together.''
  I point out to my colleagues that the amendment of Senator Feinstein 
and myself was not a cobbled-together proposal. Our work was based on 
work already done in the House of Representatives and in this body as 
well. We have also worked with a number of cities and States. In fact, 
our language is precisely the same, or I should say based on 
Congressman Chris Cox's legislation, H.R. 1544, which passed in the 
House 409 to 10, hardly indicative of an amendment that was cobbled 
together.
  The question really is, Who should make the decision on how to 
allocate homeland security dollars? There has been a lot of discussion 
about how much money should be distributed as a minimum amount and how 
much should be distributed based on risk. I ask my colleagues to 
consider in this war on terror who should make the decisions on how 
best to allocate resources. Should Congress divvy up the pie and decide 
to distribute money based on how many pieces of pie ought to be cut up, 
or should those who have access to the intelligence, who know about 
risk and how best to allocate our resources to address that risk be the 
ones to make that distribution?
  In our military and national defense, Congress provides for adequate 
training and equipment for the Department of Defense and then empowers 
the Department to allocate the resources where it believes they will be 
the most effective.
  I suggest to my colleagues that in the war on terror, the rules 
should be no different. We should empower the Department of Homeland 
Security with the similar flexibility to respond and marshal resources 
as needed.
  Finally, just by way of preliminary remarks, this morning Senator 
Feinstein offered a letter for the Record from a number of high-threat 
cities that support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. There have been 
several additions to the list of cities, including Atlanta, Buffalo, 
Houston, San Antonio, Seattle, and Toledo. I ask that this updated 
letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                    July 11, 2005.
     Re high-threat cities joint working group on homeland 
         security.

     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader and Minority Leader: As cities on the 
     front line of the war on terrorism, we are writing to express 
     our support for the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein 
     and Cornyn to incorporate S. 1013, the ``Homeland Security 
     FORWARD Funding Act of 2005, into the FY2006 Homeland 
     Security Appropriations bill. The Feinstein-Cornyn approach 
     best targets first responder funds to areas of highest risk 
     and highest threat throughout the nation. We also write to 
     support homeland security funding for state and local 
     governments at least at last year's levels. The recent events 
     in London underline the importance of homeland funding for 
     state and local governments.
       The Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) issued today, 
     in addressing State and Local Programs, urges Congress to 
     take further steps to increase the share of State grants that 
     can be targeted to where they are needed most, consistent 
     with the President's request. The Statement further notes, 
     when referring to Potential Amendments, that the 
     Administration ``supports efforts to allocate a greater share 
     of homeland security grants based on risk and would be 
     opposed to any amendment that would . . . cap funding for 
     high-threat cities while not providing flexibility to 
     distribute over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of 
     risk, as proposed in the President's Budget.'' The Feinstein-
     Cornyn Amendment clearly meets these standards, and the 
     alternative Collins Amendment incorporating S. 21 does not.
       The Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment most closely tracks the 
     recommendations of both the 9/11 Commission and the 
     Administration in supporting the principle that homeland 
     security funds should be allocated solely on the basis of 
     risk of terrorism. According to the Congressional Research 
     Service, the Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment would distribute 87 
     percent of state and local homeland security funds based on 
     threat, compared to only 60 percent distributed based on 
     threat under the Collins Amendment.
       The Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment also preserves the critical 
     partnership between the federal government, states and the 
     nation's highest risk areas by maintaining the Urban Area 
     Security Initiative (UASI) program. These UASI regions have 
     for several years been aggressively working to implement 
     comprehensive plans for terrorism prevention and preparedness 
     approved by their States and DHS. Maintaining the UASI 
     program will preserve and sustain the substantial planning, 
     longterm projects, and regional decision-making processes 
     underway. The Collins Amendment would cap the amount of funds 
     that can go to high-threat cities at 30 percent of the total 
     amount of state and local homeland funding. This cap would 
     restrict the high-threat program to a lesser amount than 
     appropriated in previous years.
       The homeland security bill as reported by the Senate 
     Appropriations committee would cut homeland security funding 
     to state and local governments by almost a half billion 
     dollars, $467 million less than FY2005. Please restore this 
     funding.
       We again commend you on your efforts to increase the amount 
     of homeland security funds distributed based on threat, 
     vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack.
           Sincerely,
       City of Anaheim, California, City of Atlanta, Georgia, City 
     of Baltimore, Maryland, City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, City 
     of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Buffalo, New York, City of 
     Charlotte, North Carolina, City of Chicago, --Illinois, City 
     of Cleveland, Ohio, City of Columbus, Ohio;
       City of Dallas, Texas, City of Denver, Colorado, City of 
     Jacksonville, Florida, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of 
     Long Beach, California, City of Los Angeles, California, City 
     of Miami, Florida, City of New York, New York, City of 
     Newark, New Jersey, City of Oakland, California;
       City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, City of Sacramento, 
     California, City of San Antonio, Texas, City of San Diego, 
     California, City of San Francisco, California, City of San 
     Jose, California, City of Santa Ana, California. City of 
     Seattle, Washington, City of Toledo, Ohio.

  Mr. CORNYN. Finally, by way of preliminary remarks, I have in my hand 
a letter written by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security, Michael Chertoff, dated July 12, 2005, where Secretary 
Chertoff writes to express his concern with regard to amendments that 
may be offered to change the first responder grant funding formula. 
Secretary Chertoff says that he welcomes the efforts by Congress to 
ensure that more homeland security dollars are distributed on the basis 
of risk, which is precisely what the amendment Senator Feinstein and I 
have offered does.
  I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record at the 
close of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CORNYN. I rise to join the Senator from California, Mrs. 
Feinstein, and other distinguished colleagues in urging support for the 
amendment that we have offered. I am compelled to bring this issue to 
the Senate's attention because I think it is imperative that we 
effectively and efficiently protect our most vulnerable assets and 
population centers, as this amendment is calculated to do. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, and I certainly want 
to acknowledge the outstanding work that Senator Collins and Senator 
Lieberman have done on homeland security issues generally.
  However, the amendment that Senator Feinstein and I offer takes a 
different approach than the one they have taken. I submit their 
amendment, as embodied in S. 21, does not achieve the level of risk-
based funding necessary to most effectively spend our homeland security 
dollars.
  We have said it often on the Senate floor and elsewhere that 9/11 has 
changed everything. The attacks of that day were unprecedented in our 
history, and they brought home the need for similarly unprecedented 
security measures. In an effort to respond quickly to the devastation 
that day wrought in our country, the Federal

[[Page S8113]]

Government created a system that worked to raise overall national 
emergency preparedness to ensure that we would better guard against 
another such terrorist attack in the future.
  So we embarked on 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. Nor do any one of us want to 
live in a lockdown that would be tantamount to a police state. Rather, 
in this free society in which we live, Congress must work to ensure 
that every penny allocated for our homeland security efforts must 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 harm to 
our people, to our Government, and to our economy. I believe this is 
the most responsible way to prepare for any future terrorist attack.
  In addition to the important efforts we are undertaking with regard 
to collecting and analyzing intelligence, we must take the fight on the 
offensive where the terrorists work, train, and recruit rather than on 
our homeland. 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 tour that I took recently 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. These kinds of facilities and the communities that 
surround them have enormous security needs, and the consequences of a 
successful terrorist attack on any of these facilities would be 
devastating, not just to these local communities but to the economic 
engine that runs this whole country.
  The ripples of a successful attack to any one of these areas would 
reach well into the interior of our country. We should protect our 
population centers, but we must also realize that when it comes to 
protecting our economy and vulnerable critical infrastructure, it is 
necessary to protect the vital components of these systems and not just 
the population centers. We must take further steps to secure our 
agricultural and food production systems and protect the ports that 
ship products in and out of this country. I believe the amendment 
offered by Senator Feinstein and myself maximizes this kind of 
flexibility and this kind of protection.
  This amendment would require that the Federal Department of 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 that we most need to protect 
and that these funds be distributed in an efficient and timely manner.
  Senator Feinstein and I have evaluated the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations that call for allocation of money based on 
vulnerabilities. Our legislation provides for a distribution formula 
for homeland security grants based upon three main criteria: threat, 
vulnerability, and consequence. This requires States to quickly pass on 
Federal funds to where they are most needed. This proposal is inspired 
by the hard work and examination done on this issue by our colleagues 
in the House of Representatives and in the 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 amendment 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 amendment provide establishing a first 
responder grant board consisting of the Department of 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.
  This amendment would provide greater flexibility in using the funds, 
allowing the 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. 
If a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may 
petition the Department of Homeland Security directly to receive those 
funds.
  In addition to trying to implement a system that was recommended by 
the 9/11 Commission, Senator Feinstein and I have proposed an amendment 
that honors the requests of the administration as reflected in the 
fiscal year 2006 Presidential budget, which calls for awarding funds to 
meet national preparedness goals and priorities rather than on mandated 
formulas that bear little relation to need and risk.
  It is my concern that our colleagues' alternative approach places too 
high a priority on providing steady streams of Federal assistance to 
each State to provide for possible terrorist attacks, with not enough 
regard to a risk-based consideration. With their proposal, States 
continue to receive a significant minimum amount, and other States with 
greater populations and population density get an additional amount. 
The result, though, is that just over half of the remaining funds are 
distributed based on risk.
  Can the taxpayers afford to keep up that level of support for every 
State without regard to risk factors as being the predominant concern? 
Can we afford providing this level of support to every State at the 
expense of those communities that are most at risk, regardless of 
whether they happen to be resident in a large State or a small State?
  I assert that continuing to spread homeland security funds throughout 
the Nation without regard to actual risk would be an inefficient 
approach and would ignore much of what I believe we have learned as 
part of our efforts to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of 
September 11.
  As we have recently learned from the tragic events in London, terror 
still has the ability and the strength to strike. The effectiveness of 
our continued vigilance and preparedness relies heavily on the 
efficient spending of our limited homeland security dollars.
  Let me say in closing, at least for this portion of my remarks, I 
believe Chairman Gregg, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Committee, and the entire subcommittee have done a very 
good job trying to address the concerns I have laid out and that 
Senator Feinstein and I have addressed, our concerns that these funds 
be primarily allocated on the basis of risk. But I believe we can do 
better. I believe we can and should do better, and I believe the 
optimal formula which provides every State with access to homeland 
security grant funds but which optimizes the receipt and delivery of 
those funds based on risk, threat, and consequence is the preferable 
way to go. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment.

                               Exhibit 1

                                                U.S. Department of


                                            Homeland Security,

                                    Washington, DC, July 12, 2005.
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: As the Senate prepares to debate the FY 2006 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act (H.R. 2360), I write to 
     express my concern regarding amendments that may be offered 
     to change the first responder grant funding formula. The 
     Department welcomes the efforts by Congress to ensure that 
     more homeland security dollars are distributed based on risk. 
     The Department of Homeland Security strongly supports 
     authorizing legislation that would distribute Federal 
     homeland security grant funds based on risk and need (the 
     delta between the level of capabilities possessed by a 
     particular jurisdiction and the level set by the National 
     Preparedness Goal) according to the President's budget 
     request, rather than on static and arbitrary minimums.
       The Administration strongly believes that Federal homeland 
     security funds should be distributed to our first responders 
     based on risk and need. Since the tragic events of September 
     11, 2001, we have distributed billions of dollars to our 
     Nation's first responders to prevent and respond to major 
     events. For the Department's primary State assistance 
     program--the State Homeland Security Grant Program--we have 
     complied with Congressional direction to distribute grants 
     according to a formula authorized in the USA PATRIOT Act, 
     which divides nearly half the

[[Page S8114]]

     funds evenly among all states. We have also complied with 
     Congressional direction to allocate the remaining funds based 
     on population. As we know through experience, however, the 
     threat posed by terrorists and others that would do us harm 
     is ever changing. We, therefore, must not continue to base 
     the distribution of limited homeland security funds on such a 
     static, inflexible formula.
       Instead, the Administration strongly supports a methodology 
     that distributes the greatest amount of funds based on risk 
     and need. This is consistent with the President's budget 
     request for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006, which supported 
     distributing nearly 90 percent of DHS' homeland security 
     grant programs according to risk and need. We also believe it 
     is important for the Administration and Congress to retain 
     the ability to adjust the balance of state and regional 
     grants each year. Such an approach would still provide a 
     minimum funding level for each state, recognizing that each 
     state has unmet homeland security capabilities. For these 
     reasons, the Administration would oppose amendments that 
     would add new bureaucratic requirements and cap funding for 
     high-threat cities while not providing enough flexibility to 
     distribute over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of 
     risk.
       Further, with the development and implementation of the 
     Interim National Preparedness Goal and the accompanying 
     National Planning Guidance, we now have the requisite tools 
     and resources to make more informed decisions on how to focus 
     our finite resources. In coordination with other Federal 
     agencies, DHS has identified the 36 capabilities that are 
     critical to preventing another terrorist attack and, if an 
     attack does occur, to respond and recover in a manner that 
     minimizes loss of life and other damage. We must focus our 
     state and local preparedness efforts on building those 
     capabilities to the right level and in the right places. 
     Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives us 
     the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are allocated 
     in a prioritized and objective manner.
       The Department would appreciate your support of legislation 
     consistent with these principles, and looks forward to 
     working with you to ensure that communities across the 
     country improve their preparedness to prevent, respond to, 
     and recover from terrorism and other major incidents.
       Sincerely,
                                                 Michael Chertoff.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
New York is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment or the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment, whichever 
it may be, because it would distribute a greater percentage of first 
responder money to areas that need it the most.
  First, I thank my colleagues, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, 
for their leadership. They have been at the forefront of saying that we 
needed a new formula. I think all of us in this area agree. I know they 
are trying their best to balance the interests of smaller States and 
larger States, an issue in this Republic since it was founded in 1789. 
While I do not agree with the way they came out, I have a great deal of 
respect for their efforts to be fair. If I were from a smaller State, 
who knows, maybe I would be supporting that formula. I hope not, but 
that might be the case.
  But the reason I feel so strongly about the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment is this: The war on terror is a war we probably faced before 
9/11, but we probably only realized we were fighting a full-fledged war 
after 9/11. The war on terror is a serious one, and I have said time 
and time again we have to make this a two-front war--a good war on 
offense, which you fight overseas, and a good war on defense, which you 
fight here at home.
  Unfortunately, because of technology, small groups of bad people can 
hit any place at any time. Technology allows them to do this. So every 
one of our citizens is on the front line.
  I understand that a Senator from Wyoming or a Senator from Maine or a 
Senator from Connecticut believes, correctly--or a Senator from 
Georgia, a middle-size State--believes that their people are on the 
front line. But I have to tell you that you have to live in New York to 
understand the difference. It is theoretically possible, of course, 
that terrorists could hit us everywhere, as I said. But it is not 
everywhere that has been subject to two devastating terrorist attacks. 
It is not everywhere where 100 members of the police force are 
overseas, on their own, trying to figure out intelligence to thwart an 
attack on our dear city. It is not everywhere, where every bridge in 
New York, every major bridge, has two police officers at one end and 
two police officers at the other end, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  It is not that the other areas are any less careful; it is just the 
threat and danger is greatest to us. So it seems patently unfair to say 
that States that might have a threat but do not have as large, as 
tangible, as repeated a threat--week after week, month after month--
should actually get more money on a per capita basis than States such 
as New York or California or Texas, which are much more on the front 
lines simply because they have large agglomerations of people. We all 
know that is where the terrorists want to hit. They want to try to hurt 
as many people as they can, and our larger cities and larger 
metropolitan areas have those concentrations.
  You do not read in the newspapers and when we have our intelligence 
briefings up in 407, when you ask what names have been named, you don't 
hear the smaller cities. You only hear a handful of names, over and 
over again. They are not the smaller cities. They are not the smaller 
States. They are the New Yorks and the Los Angeleses and the 
Washingtons and the Miamis.
  I hope my colleagues in this case would rise to the occasion. Again, 
I understand that every State has needs. As I said, how can I be sure 
that if I were from a small State I would not want to favor a formula 
that had more for the small States? But in New York City, we would like 
to get a lot of corn subsidies or oil subsidies, but we don't have much 
corn or oil. This provision is aimed at threat. It is not something 
good to have, it is something bad to have, but it is only fair and it 
is only right that we make this as threat- based as possible.
  The great irony is that at the very time when the administration, 
under Mr. Chertoff's leadership, has made pledges that their 
discretionary dollars, which is now 60 percent, would be threat-based, 
we in the Senate are making the formula less threat-based. The great 
irony is that, if we gave 100 percent of the money to the 
administration, the areas under the greatest threat would do better 
than under this proposal. That often doesn't happen when you are from 
New York City, but this is the case right now.
  I hope we rise to the occasion. To have Wyoming get $38.31 per capita 
while New York gets only $5.47 per capita doesn't look like a formula 
based on threat but looks like a formula based on politics, to me. So 
we can change this around. The Cornyn-Feinstein bill does not go all 
the way to make it totally threat-based, but at least it restores some 
of the balance and makes it fair. I hope my colleagues will rise to the 
occasion and support a bill that we all know is ultimately the right 
thing to do. Support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment which will give the 
areas under the greatest threat the greatest amount of dollars.

  I yield the remaining time to my colleague from California, who 
generously ceded to me the 10 minutes I was granted.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. We reserve the remainder of that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who 
is the chief cosponsor of the Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is an important debate. I wish to 
give a little background to it because there is a sense in which what 
is said up here is a contest between the Collins-Lieberman amendment 
and the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. Both of these amendments are 
amendments to the underlying bill. It is in that sense I urge my 
colleagues to consider the Collins-Lieberman amendment first.
  There is some history to this amendment. It just didn't arise up in 
response to this Homeland Security appropriations bill, but from our 
committee; Senator Collins is the chair and I am the ranking Democrat 
on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. This is 
the committee from which the Department of Homeland Security emerged as 
an entity to be adopted by the Congress and signed and implemented by 
the President.
  We have been concerned about these homeland security grants because, 
if I am correct, we had some testimony that there was not another grant 
program of this size, over $1 billion--over

[[Page S8115]]

$2 billion, actually, last year--that did not have an authorization, 
that just sort of was in the air.
  We wanted to create an authorization for it. We also wanted to create 
some accountability. This is a lot of money. We, as Senator Collins has 
indicated, create a series of auditing and review processes to make 
sure the people's money is well spent so we do not find the kind of 
wastefulness of which Senator Collins has given examples. So that is 
the first thing. The bill, S. 21, that passed our committee 
overwhelmingly--as a matter of fact, I believe it passed on a unanimous 
voice vote, bipartisan obviously--becomes this amendment, so it creates 
an authorization.
  Second, it creates a formula. Because the formula has been changing 
from year to year at the judgment of the Department of Homeland 
Security and the administration, it doesn't give a predictable flow of 
funds to the local communities that are trying to prepare themselves to 
protect us from a terrorist attack, which could occur anywhere in this 
country.
  The second part of it is, how do you allocate the money in the 
formula? That is what now is at issue between the two amendments that 
are being debated, the Collins-Lieberman and the Cornyn-Feinstein 
amendment.
  Senator Collins and I very strongly believe that our amendment, the 
committee proposal, is balanced. The choice seems to be, do you 
allocate based totally on risk assessments or do you allocate based on 
risk assessments and then give some minimum amount to every State in 
the country because we are not sure where the terrorists are going to 
strike next?
  My friends who are supporting the other amendment sometimes have 
seemed to describe what is at issue here as a choice between a 
congressionally mandated, politically inspired--some dare use the word 
pork barrel formula--on the one hand and an intelligence-driven, pure 
risk-based approach determined by the Department of Homeland Security 
on the other hand. Not true. In fact, contrary to what my friend from 
New York, Senator Schumer, just said, it is not really a battle between 
big States and small States. It is a much more complicated but very 
crucial argument here as to how you assess risk in an age of terrorism, 
post-9/11, when our homeland was struck and 3,000 people were killed.
  Sometimes my friends supporting the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment speak 
about risk assessment as if it were pure science, as if it were an 
exercise that was 100 percent predictable, as if one could say 2 plus 2 
equals 4. That is right, you can say that: 2 plus 2 equals 4. You 
cannot make that same kind of certain conclusion about risk assessments 
regarding where terrorists will strike. The fact is, forgive me--maybe 
don't forgive me--terrorists are inherently irrational, insane, crazy, 
inhumane. So how could we predict where they are going to strike next?
  We understand one of the factors they consider is the visibility of 
an attack. Presumably that is one of the reasons why they struck on 
September 11 in New York and in Washington. But that is not the only 
motivation they have. Their motivation is to create panic and fear in 
our society.
  In fact, they have not always struck major population centers. 
Remember the disco attacks in Bali, a resort area. Why was that done? 
There are westerners gathered there, and it was done to terrify people 
in an area where they would not expect to be attacked. What about the 
school in Beslam, Russia? That was not a major population center. That 
was carried out in a community similar to thousands of communities 
across America for the psychological impact as well as the brutal 
effect on the children who were there.
  When we talk about risk analysis, it is not a certainty. It is an 
educated guess about where the terrorists are going to strike next. The 
most likely guess, an educated guess about where they will strike in 
the United States.
  But does that justify not continuing to fund the Homeland Security 
grants, the local law enforcement personnel all across America in other 
medium-sized cities and small cities? What about the risk everyone 
talks about of attacking our food supply or poisoning our water supply? 
That risk is not in the cities designated, according to the 
conventional risk analysis, as high risk.
  The 9/11 Commission said our failure to be better prepared for 
September 11, our failure to do more to prevent it was what they 
described as a ``failure of imagination.'' What did they mean? We could 
not imagine that people would do what the terrorists did on September 
11. And they were right. Therefore, as we think about how best to 
protect America, we have to put ourselves in the perverse and hateful 
heads of terrorists. There is all too much of a plausibility that 
terrorists want to strike not just the major population centers but 
smaller towns, places where people congregate. Want to create real 
panic in the United States? Do something like that.
  For us to assume, based on essentially an educated guess that is risk 
analysis, that all the communities around the country that need our 
help should not get some amount of help seems to me to be without 
foundation.
  Senator Collins was very compelling yesterday when she said also that 
if we take the September 11 attacks and look at places around America 
where those 19 terrorists gained access to the United States--Portland, 
ME, for instance; they took off from Portland to head to New York; the 
small towns where they trained in flying planes, where they acquired 
equipment to carry out their deadly deeds--we need to provide the kind 
of support that the Collins-Lieberman amendment provides to law 
enforcement officers all across America, the 700,000, God bless them, 
out there risking their lives every day for us.
  They are the first responders. But they are also the first 
preventers, the ones whose eyes and ears are all across America. They 
see that piece of evidence that makes them suspicious; that can be the 
thread that will unravel the next terrorist plot, even one targeted 
toward one of the areas that is higher risk according to these risk 
assessments.
  Senator Collins and I tried to balance this. We have deferred to the 
current risk analysis. We give effectively 60 percent and as high as 70 
percent when we follow our sliding scale of money under this grant 
program to higher risk analyzed places in America. But the rest deserve 
some support, too. The rest merit some protection, as well. Bob 
Mueller, the FBI Director, said America is awash in targets. America is 
awash in possible vulnerable targets for terrorists--and they are all 
over America. We want to respond in a positive way and work to protect 
all of America.
  This chart is a map of the United States of America. It is a 
comparison of the impact of the Collins-Lieberman amendment compared to 
the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. All the States in green would get more 
funds under the Collins-Lieberman amendment than under the Feinstein-
Cornyn amendment. The big States would also do fine. They get that 
extra money because of risk analysis. And we defer to that, but we do 
not yield totally to it.
  Incidentally, we have some big States that receive more money under 
our proposal than under the other, including Texas, Florida, Michigan, 
and Ohio. Senator Levin will explain why, coming from Michigan, he 
strongly supports this amendment. I hope Members will keep this chart 
in mind when voting.
  The second point, I go back to what I said at the beginning. This is 
an amendment to the underlying Homeland Security appropriations bill. 
In addition to the argument about risk and the formula, there is a 
difference of opinion about money. We have all been talking about this 
with an intensity after the dreadful attacks in London last week. The 
current appropriations bill would cut funding in these grant categories 
from $2.3 billion down to $1.9 billion. Senator Collins and I and 
members of our committee believe that is not enough.
  I say again what I have said before: We have the best military in the 
world for a lot of reasons, one of which is we have had the guts to 
invest in that military, to spend the money on it. We will only have 
the best homeland defense if we similarly invest. This amendment would 
raise the authorization level up to $2.9 billion. That is the least we 
can do to support our local and State efforts, our first responders and 
first preventers.
  I hope, as our colleagues come to vote on these two amendments at 5 
o'clock, they will understand not only the differences in the approach 
on risk

[[Page S8116]]

formula, but the differences between our amendment and the underlying 
appropriations bill.
  In the moment or two remaining, I will speak a little bit about how 
the Collins-Lieberman amendment improves on H.R. 2360, the underlying 
bill. We provide States with predictable funding over time. The 
appropriations bill adopts a different formula this year than last year 
and may adopt another formula next year. That does not help our local 
first responders, preventers, Homeland Security agencies in planning 
and protecting America.

  Second, our amendment includes a sliding-scale baseline different 
from the Appropriations Committee proposal that provides additional 
guaranteed funds to the largest and most densely populated States.
  Third, the amendment provides an overall framework for how Homeland 
Security funds are to be distributed.
  Fourth, there are accountability measures designed to ensure that the 
grant money is spent properly and effectively. There are no 
accountability measures in the Appropriations Committee bill. 
Incidentally, there is no dollar number in the Cornyn-Feinstein 
amendment as compared to our $2.9 billion and the Appropriations 
Committee's $1.9 billion.
  Finally, fifth, our amendment does improve the grants process itself 
compared to the underlying bill. The Collins-Lieberman amendment does 
not just establish a formula, it includes measures to streamline and 
improve the Homeland Security grants process. That includes provisions 
on applications, planning, and reporting measures to encourage regional 
coordination, so important in protecting our people from terrorism.
  We establish a list of essential capabilities for all jurisdictions 
so that the Homeland Security Department and the localities understand 
what capabilities the experts feel they should develop in the local 
areas to be prepared to prevent, and God forbid, if an attack occurs, 
to respond to a terrorist attack. And it creates an interagency 
committee to find ways to eliminate redundant and duplicative 
requirements for the Homeland Security grants across the Federal 
Government.
  In short, our amendment takes a far more comprehensive approach to 
the first responder grants than the underlying bill. On that basis 
alone, not to mention the fairness of our formula, I urge my colleagues 
to support the Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Martinez.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coleman). The Senator from Florida is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment to the fiscal year 2006 Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill.
  The concept of this amendment is simple--to direct homeland security 
dollars to the areas where the threat of attack is greatest.
  It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on 
that September morning they chose to strike at our two most powerful 
cities, our center for capitalism and commerce, New York, and our 
center of Government, Washington.
  Since that fateful day, we have been fortifying our Nation in order 
to prevent another attack--and so far we have succeeded--but we must 
remain vigilant.
  And just last week London was hit by a string of deadly terrorist 
bombings, another heinous and despicable act performed by outlaws too 
weak to show their face and too naive to know that this recent attack 
will only strengthen our resolve to hunt and destroy terrorists and 
their sympathizers wherever they lie. My heart goes out to our allies 
and friends in Great Britain and I know all of my colleagues join me in 
expressing our sympathy and solidarity with the British people.
  It was no accident that when the terrorists attacked our Nation on 
September 11, 2001, they picked powerful, high-profile, and heavily 
trafficked targets.
  Terrorists target areas where they can inflict the most damage and 
get the most attention, and for those reasons they focus on urban 
centers, areas of national importance, areas that are highly populated.
  But if you include the interests of a region--be they tourist 
attractions, amusements parks or resorts, at anyone time there can be 
millions of visitors.
  For instance, Orange County, FL, is one of the top vacation 
destinations in the world. In 2003 the region played host to over 45 
million visitors.
  On March 18, 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration imposed a no-
fly zone over the Walt Disney World Resort area--because, according to 
an FAA spokesperson: ``The Disney parks are a potential target of 
symbolic value . . .'' Florida is also home to 14 deepwater ports, many 
of which are nationally significant and critically important parts of 
our country's shipping infrastructure.
  For example, at the Port of Miami nearly 4 million cruise passengers 
passed through the Port and over 9 million tons of cargo transited 
through the seaport. This combination of cruise and cargo activities 
supported approximately 98,000 jobs, and has an economic impact in 
Miami-Dade County of over $12 billion.
  The Port of Tampa had over 800,000 cruise passengers and handles 
nearly 50 million tons per year, or half of the State's total seaborne 
cargo tonnage. The Port of Tampa is also the largest economic engine in 
west central Florida.
  Again, these examples highlight the issues associated with regional 
influx.
  The whole State of Florida, in fact, now plays host to 77 million 
tourists a year. That is on top of our 17 million person population.
  We cannot overstate the importance of regional concepts and that 
models created by this amendment will encourage funding to be spent not 
only on our major cities, but also on those regional centers that 
require certain protections.
  One more point. In a letter. In a letter dated today from Homeland 
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, he writes:

       Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives 
     us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are 
     allocated in a prioritized and objective manner.

  Secretary Chertoff adds:

       The Department of Homeland Security strongly supports 
     authorization language that would distribute Federal homeland 
     security grant funds based on risk and need, rather than on 
     static and arbitrary minimums.

  This amendment, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, meets Secretary 
Chertoff's desire, and that is to require the Department of Homeland 
Security to allocate grants to States based primarily on threat 
assessment and vulnerability. I believe that kind of discretion to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security will only enhance his ability to keep 
our country safe and to respond to the areas of most critical and 
immediate need and concern.
  As a Congress, we must be prudent in appropriating funds to meet our 
essential capabilities. The ability to meet the risk to our Nation by 
reducing our vulnerability to attack is essential to our success in 
defending America in this war on terror.
  Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important amendment. It is currently a time in which we have been 
reminded by the events of last week of the importance that we must 
place on our homeland security, on the security of our Nation in order 
that we might be able to forestall any future terrorist designs upon 
our Nation.
  I believe the people of Florida will be best served by an approach 
that bases the decision on the Department of Homeland Security of where 
the grants may go on the risk and the perceived assessment of that risk 
and not on some static formula.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the remainder of my time back to 
the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, at this time I would like to yield up to 
10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan. I thank the Senator from 
Michigan for his many contributions to this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. Let me thank our chairman, Senator 
Collins, for all the work she has put in on

[[Page S8117]]

this bill. It is a vast improvement over the formula and over the 
proposal of the administration, which came to us and which was worked 
on very hard by Senator Collins, Senator Lieberman, and others on the 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. What we will be 
voting on at 5 o'clock will be two amendments. The first amendment will 
be the Collins-Lieberman amendment, which is a significant improvement, 
it seems to me, from the vantage point of almost every State over the 
administration proposal. It is that amendment that I want to talk about 
and which I am proud to cosponsor.
  For the past 3 years, the State homeland security grant program has 
distributed funds using a funding formula that arbitrarily sets aside a 
large portion of the funds to be divided equally among the States 
regardless of need. This formula disadvantages States with high 
populations. While other Federal grant programs provide a minimum State 
funding level to ensure funds reach all areas of the country, the State 
minimum formula which has been used to allocate State homeland security 
program funds in the underlying bill and which was in the 
administration's proposal--let me correct that--in the underlying bill, 
the underlying bill is unusually high. The underlying bill basically is 
a .75 percent minimum guarantee, which is similar to the one which has 
been in effect until now, and this is an unusually high minimum formula 
when compared to other formulas in other bills. The most common minimum 
formula in most programs is .5, one-half of 1 percent.
  The .25 percent minimum is more common than the .75 percent minimum. 
Yet in the bill before us--and I misspoke before when I said the 
administration's proposal. In the appropriations bill before us it is 
effectively a .75 percent minimum guarantee, which is significantly 
higher than most of the kinds of guarantees which have existed in 
programs similar to this where .5, half of a percent, is the most 
common formula and, in fact, one-quarter of 1 percent, or .25, is more 
common than the .75, or three-quarters of 1 percent, which is 
effectively the minimum guarantee in the Appropriations Committee's 
report.
  We have been working hard to come up with a more equitable formula. 
We worked very hard, as the Presiding Officer knows, in the committee 
on which both of us serve. It is a very difficult issue to reach a 
consensus, and yet we came to a very near consensus in committee. It 
wasn't unanimous, but it was close to unanimous in committee because of 
the hard work particularly of our chairman and our ranking member to 
come up with a formula which would try to treat all of our States 
equitably.
  We did a number of things, but perhaps the most significant addition 
we made to what has been the practice is that we added a new option 
basically for high population or high population density States so that 
they could choose in effect either between the minimum formula of .55 
percent, which is in the Collins-Lieberman amendment, or select another 
formula which is based more on population and population density. 
Almost all of our States--not quite all but almost all of our States--
as a result of that option that is built into the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment do better than they do under the bill which is pending before 
us.
  The underlying appropriations bill that provides funding for homeland 
security grants provides that each State and territory shall receive 
the same dollar amount for the State minimum as was distributed in 
fiscal year 2005, and that is what essentially leads to the conclusion 
that that would be a .75 percent base State funding formula that 
arbitrarily sets aside a large portion of funds to be divided equally 
among the States regardless of need.

  The authorizing committee--it is a key point here--the Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee is the authorizing 
committee--after holding hearings and going through a markup passed 
this compromise formula language which is in the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment before us, which would allow States to choose either the .55 
percent of the total amount appropriated for the threat-based homeland 
security grant program or--and this is the addition which is so 
critical to so many of our States--a minimum amount based on a State's 
relative population and population density. This option for States will 
provide additional guaranteed funds to the largest and most densely 
populated States. The remainder of the total funds, approximately 60 
percent, would go to the States and regions based purely on risk and 
threat assessment by the Department of Homeland Security using factors 
set forth in the amendment--and that is another important point--that 
the factors for the Homeland Security Department to consider are set 
forth in the amendment. And then up to half of the remaining funds 
could be allocated in the discretion of the Department to metropolitan 
areas.
  The amendment sets some guidance, in other words, on the factors to 
be considered in allocating risk-based funding.
  Mr. President, this amendment that is before us represents a 
compromise. It is a compromise that has the support of small States and 
many of our largest States and our most populated States. Perhaps not 
all of them, although I believe by any measure, by any measure, the 
Collins-Lieberman amendment before us advantages even the most 
populated States compared to the bill that it seeks to amend.
  There will be a later amendment that will be voted upon that from the 
perspective of a number of States would be an improvement over Collins-
Lieberman, but that is not what people have to vote on, as to whether 
they support Collins-Lieberman or the Feinstein amendment. People could 
vote for both amendments. It is not one amendment substituting for the 
other. This is not a decision as to which is better, vote only for one. 
From the perspective of some States both of the amendments would be an 
improvement over the underlying bill.
  The reason I am cosponsoring the Collins-Lieberman amendment is I 
believe it is the result of a carefully crafted compromise which adds a 
number of critical factors that do not exist in the way funds have been 
distributed up to now. The addition of the option for the population 
density factor is a significant improvement over the underlying bill 
which basically reflects the way funds have been apportioned to now. 
And the fact that there are also factors which are laid out in the bill 
to be considered by the Department means that all of us can see when it 
comes to the discretionary decisions by the Department the factors that 
the Department is to take into account when apportioning those funds. 
These are significant improvements in the underlying bill, I believe, 
for almost every State here. I repeat, the fact that an amendment that 
we will be voting on subsequently may be better even from the 
perspective of a number of States should not cause people to vote no on 
the Collins-Lieberman amendment, which from the perspective, I believe, 
of almost every State is an improvement on the underlying bill which is 
before us.
  So I commend the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Connecticut 
for working so hard to try to find a bipartisan approach, an approach 
which has great equity in it for all of our States greater than, 
surely, the present status quo, which needs to be changed but which I 
am afraid would be perpetuated if we simply adopt the Appropriations 
Committee proposal and if we defeat the Collins-Lieberman amendment. I 
hope that amendment will be greeted with strong support on the floor 
because it does represent an improvement from the perspective of almost 
all if not all States over the underlying status quo.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes 26 seconds remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think this small chart describes both amendments. 
The underlying appropriations bill has $1.39 billion. That is 70 
percent of the money. Under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, $1.155 
billion is based on risk. That is 60 percent. And under the Feinstein-
Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based on risk. That is 87 percent. 
The source is the Congressional Research Service. The Congressional 
Research Service was called again this morning. They stand by these 
figures.

[[Page S8118]]

  Now, let me quickly bring to your attention the position of the 
administration. The position of the administration is set out in a 
letter of July 12 signed by Michael Chertoff to Members of the Senate. 
Let me just read a few parts.

       The administration strongly believes that Federal homeland 
     security funds should be distributed to our first responders 
     based on risk and need.
       The Administration would oppose amendments that would add 
     new bureaucratic requirements and cap funding for high threat 
     cities while not providing enough flexibility to distribute 
     over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of risk.
       The administration's position is 90 percent of grant funds 
     should be distributed on the basis of risk. The closest 
     amendment to that is Feinstein-Cornyn at 87 percent of grant 
     funds distributed on the basis of risk.

  And here is the reason that DHS gives.

       DHS is identifying 36 capabilities that are critical to 
     preventing another terrorist attack and, if an attack does 
     occur, to respond and recover in a manner that minimizes loss 
     of life and other damages. We must focus our State and local 
     preparedness efforts on building those capabilities to the 
     right level and in the right places. Funding our first 
     responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to 
     ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized 
     and objective manner.

  Mr. President, I could not agree with that more. That is why we feel 
so strongly about our amendment. You have to send the money where the 
need is.
  You have to send the money where the anticipation is that there might 
be an attack, where the intelligence says--not this body; we don't 
know--this Nation is vulnerable. What Senator Cornyn and I have tried 
to do is see that there is enough flexibility to get enough of that 
money out there. The President has set the standard at 90 percent. Our 
bill comes to 87 percent.
  Unlike the Collins-Lieberman amendment, the Cornyn-Feinstein 
amendment retains the high-threat cities' Urban Area Security 
Initiative Program. This program and these regions--some 50 cities--
have for several years been aggressively working to implement 
comprehensive plans. They remain intact, unless the Secretary of 
Homeland Security decides to the contrary. I included in the Record 
previously the letter from them containing 30 of the cities.
  It is actually true this body can vote yes on both amendments. But my 
view is this: We are spending billions and billions on intelligence. We 
are beefing up every aspect of intelligence, creating new entities, 
improving interfacing, giving this huge new Department of Homeland 
Security all kinds of analysis responsibility. But we are also giving 
them a formula by which they have to allocate the money. That makes no 
sense at all. Let them do it on the basis of risk. Let them do it on 
the basis of threat and vulnerability. Let them move money around as 
the need indicates.
  I don't believe there is anyone in this body who is prescient enough 
to know where al-Qaida or Gama'a al-Islamiyya or any other group might 
attack the United States next. One thing we do know, there are 
terrorist cells in this country, and they are geographically spread 
across the country. There is no question about that. So why shouldn't 
the money be based on risk and threat?
  This amendment does that: 87 percent of the funds, $1.667 billion, 
based on risk. The administration's standard is 90 percent. Our 
amendment comes closest to that standard.
  Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from California and the Chair.
  I want to clear up some of the confusion that took place this morning 
in our debate over these amendments on homeland security funding. 
First, I want to make it absolutely clear that we have checked 
continuously with the CRS. Their report sent to me about the effects of 
the amendment proposed by Senators Collins and Lieberman to this 
appropriations bill is absolutely accurate. They confirm that the ratio 
of funds directed to the high-risk areas is at 60 percent and the other 
distribution is 40 percent. So we take it away from the highest risk 
areas. The Senator from Maine earlier suggested that CRS has somehow 
disavowed their memo. That is not so. Again, we have talked to CRS 
recently and have been assured that the memo sent to me is valid and 
accurate.
  The CRS memo sent to me summarizes how much money the Collins 
amendment would direct to risk and how much to State guarantees. In a 
nutshell, the report finds that the Collins-Lieberman amendment would 
only provide 60 percent of the funding based on risk. The CRS report 
goes on to explain that the underlying appropriations bill would 
provide 70 percent of the funding on a risk basis. CRS reports this is 
a difference of over $183 million. That is over $183 million that 
Secretary Chertoff wanted to send to the highest risk places.
  We don't want to tie the Secretary's hands. The administration has 
been very clear about what they want. They want to put the money where 
the risk is. That is what makes the most sense.
  I have said in the past we are the second theater of war to Iraq 
because we know that at any time our enemies could attack, and they are 
not telling us when or where. The fact is, we are all under the 
misgiving that what happened in London and what happened at the World 
Trade Center and what happened in Madrid could happen here. How dare we 
say: No, we have to distribute around to other places. Everybody wants 
to protect their constituents, small towns, large cities, whatever it 
is. I don't blame people for that. But when you have a plague in an 
area, you give the vaccine, if you have it, to the people who live in 
that area. When you have an attack on the water, you send the ships to 
the area. Why in the world are we deciding here and now that we 
shouldn't give the money to the areas of highest risk?

  In my State, a place called South Carney, NJ has a significant 
chemical manufacturing and distribution operation. If that was attacked 
and those chemicals were released into the air, we could see 12 million 
people die. We saw the terrible events in London. It has been said that 
a couple seconds either way could have created a much higher casualty 
figure.
  Today you heard from the Senator from California that Secretary 
Chertoff wrote a letter to all Senators. I repeat:

       The administration strongly believes that Federal Homeland 
     Security funds should be distributed to our first responders 
     based on risk and need.

  You have heard again that Secretary Chertoff wants the flexibility to 
distribute up to 90 percent of the funds based on risk. Ninety percent 
is a lot different than a mere 60 percent.
  We can't legislate risk. It is that simple. We need to leave this to 
the experts. Secretary Chertoff is developing analytical tools to 
target areas of risk and vulnerability. We confirmed him almost 
unanimously. Now we should let him do the job he has been selected to 
do.
  The 9/11 Commission was adamant that we must distribute homeland 
security money based on risk. I have talked to former Governor Tom 
Kean, a distinguished public servant and head of the Commission, about 
this subject. He continues to demand that we move toward risk-based 
funding. I remind the Senate that Secretary Ridge, before Secretary 
Chertoff, supported full funding to go to the areas of highest risk.
  There was an arduous effort put into the creation of an intelligence 
reform bill, led by Senators Collins and Senator Lieberman. I say to 
them: Let's help the administration target real areas of risk and 
vulnerability. Let's make sure we understand that the authorization for 
the bill was at $2.9 billion, around that, and the appropriations bill 
is at $1.9 billion. So on the surface it does look like there is more 
coming to everybody. But it is not true. The fact is, we should not be 
taking money away from the highest risk areas and dividing it based 
simply on population.
  I hope we will approve the Feinstein amendment and reject the Collins 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, would the Chair inform me how much time 
is left on the Collins-Lieberman amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 18 minutes 51 seconds.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the 
Senator from Nebraska, who has played a

[[Page S8119]]

very important role in crafting this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Maine for the opportunity to rise in support of the Collins amendment 
today. I am also a cosponsor of the bill she and Senator Lieberman have 
introduced, S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005. 
Each year since the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, 
many of us have come to the floor to remind our colleagues that 
terrorism is not only a threat faced by States with large urban 
populations but also States with large rural populations. Since 
September 11, States and communities of all sizes have made great 
strides in preparing for another possible terrorist attack.
  Based on the National Strategy for Homeland Security's principle of 
shared responsibility, Federal, State, and local governments, together 
with the private sector and the American people, work in partnership to 
ensure our first responders are well equipped and well trained. States 
and local governments are responsible for preparing and implementing 
multiyear plans to ensure our Nation's first responders receive the 
equipment and training they require. This year we turn our attention to 
the fiscal year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill following 
the devastating terrorist attack on our closest ally in the global war 
on terrorism. The coordinated attacks in London last week remind us 
that Islamic totalitarianism is still a threat to our democratic values 
and ideals and not solely confined to the borders of Iraq or the Middle 
East. The bombings on the subway and bus lines in London underscore the 
fact that terrorists will attempt to attack us when they choose, how 
they choose, and where they choose. And because terror can strike us 
anywhere, it is vitally important that our first responders have the 
funding they need in order to prepare for most, if not every, imagined 
threat.
  Each year we look for better ways to provide homeland security 
funding for States, be they large or small. The amendment offered by my 
colleague from Maine would achieve something that has not happened yet 
with respect to first responder funding. It would provide much needed 
predictability for our first responder planners. Because there has 
never been an authorization for this funding, each year, these programs 
are subject to great debate and amendments on the Senate floor, leaving 
our city and State officials without any sort of certainty in their 
preparedness planning. In the years since the attacks of September 11, 
2001, the Federal Government has provided States with a share of 
available homeland security funds through the State Homeland Security 
Grant Program, SHSGP. This program has been the primary source of 
coordinated funding for first responders, allowing States and local 
governments to build a base capacity by funding essential prevention, 
preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities. In past years, 
States have been guaranteed a minimum of .75 percent of these funds.
  The Collins amendment would modify the State funding program in three 
primary ways. First, it would combine three programs into one larger 
pot of funding. The SHSGP, with the Law Enforcement Terrorism and 
Prevention Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative, would now 
become one pool of money to be shared among the States. Second, it 
would authorize $2.9 billion in total funding for the three programs. 
This is important because the trend has clearly been to decrease this 
amount. Last year's bill included $2.7 billion in first responder 
funding, and this year's underlying Senate bill only includes $1.9 
billion for these programs.
  Third, it would set the funding formula so that each State would be 
guaranteed a minimum level of funding, .55 percent of the total funding 
of the program. The remainder of the funds would be distributed based 
on risk. This guaranteed funding stream is critical for all of our 
smaller States. For many of our States, this guaranteed minimum will be 
most, if not all, of our first responder funding. I am not advocating 
that homeland security funds be diverted from high risk areas. But, 
rather, I am saying that rural and smaller States also need assistance 
in securing their communities and preparing for a possible attack. 
States set their own priorities when it comes to preparing for 
terrorist attacks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield 30 more seconds to the Senator.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, our amendment would give the 
smaller States the ability to have continuity and predictability in 
budgeting for their plans. I think it suffices to say that our country 
is only as safe as our weakest vulnerability. We need to make sure 
every part of the country is prepared, regardless of location or size. 
The citizens of America expect that everything possible is being done 
to prevent another terrorist attack, and they expect that if another 
tragedy were to occur, the response and recovery will be immediate, 
well coordinated, and well trained.
  The Collins amendment will strengthen regional efforts and increase 
every State's ability to protect both its urban and rural critical 
infrastructure. Whether it is the protection of an urban shopping mall 
or the prevention of a rural bioterrorism incident that would affect 
our food and water supply, these infrastructures in every State must be 
protected. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 12 minutes 42 seconds.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes.
  Let me make some concluding remarks about the impact of the amendment 
offered by our colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn. The 
fact is that the amendment would decimate the predictable funding 
levels for States. The minimum in the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is 
only .25. It is simply too low to support the efforts by States to have 
a predictable base level of funding each year to fund multiyear 
projects, such as creating interoperable communications networks, first 
responder training programs, or the agriterrorism project that the 
Midwestern Governors are eager to establish.
  I will give you a couple of examples of what the differences would 
mean. Assuming the Senate bill's appropriation level under our 
amendment, the State of Georgia could plan on receiving a base amount 
of $15.3 million. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Georgia would 
be assured of getting only $2.4 million as a minimum allocation.
  Under our amendment, North Carolina would receive a base of a little 
over $15 million. But under Feinstein-Cornyn, the State could only 
count on $2.4 million.
  Under our amendment, Florida would receive a base amount of more than 
$30 million because of the sliding scale minimum. But under the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Florida would only get $2.4 million.
  Furthermore, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment's lack of predictable 
funding inhibits the ability of States to plan. Both our colleagues' 
amendment and the Collins-Lieberman amendment would require States to 
submit 3-year State homeland security plans. Yet, the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment does not provide a predictable base, so such plans would not 
be a fruitful exercise.
  For example, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment requires that the State 
plan include ``a prioritization of needs based on threat, 
vulnerability, and consequence assessment, and a description of how the 
State intends to address such needs at the city, county, regional, 
tribal, and interstate level.''
  I simply fail to see how a State could satisfy these ambitious 
requirements without any assurances that it would receive a significant 
base amount of funding. Because our amendment provides States with that 
predictable, substantial base allocation, the 3-year plans would 
actually become useful roadmaps and would allow for more efficient 
expenditure of homeland security funds. That is why our amendment is 
strongly supported over the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment by the National 
Governors Association.

[[Page S8120]]

  Mr. President, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment shortchanges funding 
dedicated to the prevention of terrorism attacks. It simply does not 
provide the kind of assured funding needed for law enforcement to help 
detect and prevent attacks before they occur. Indeed, it takes 
significant steps backward from what Senators Gregg and Byrd have 
included in the underlying bill.
  The underlying bill appropriates $400 million for the Law Enforcement 
Terrorism Prevention Program, which provides funds for police, 
sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel to stop terrorist 
activity before it occurs. By contrast, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment 
actually swallows up the existing law enforcement terrorism prevention 
program, without ensuring any funds whatsoever--any funds whatsoever--
for our police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel.
  In other words, all of the funding under the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment could be used to prepare to respond to terrorist attacks, 
leaving efforts to prevent such attacks entirely up to our States and 
communities.
  In sharp contrast, the Collins-Lieberman amendment would formally 
authorize the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and ensure 
that prevention efforts are adequately protected by treating them as a 
separate program with different allowable uses than response efforts. 
That is why the law enforcement community has overwhelmingly endorsed 
our amendment.
  The Collins-Lieberman amendment enjoys the support of the National 
Troopers Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police 
Associations, the Association of Chiefs of Police, and the list goes on 
and on, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the 
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the 
National Emergency Management Association.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these and other 
organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      Letters of Support for S. 21


                                  National Troopers Coalition,

                                      Green Bay, WI, June 9, 2005.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Chair, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
         U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Chairman Collins: On behalf of the 40,000 state 
     troopers and highway patrol men and women represented by the 
     National Troopers Coalition (NTC), I would like to express 
     our support of S. 21. ``The Homeland Security Grant 
     Enhancement Act of 2005.''
       By bringing together existing programs and initiatives 
     addressing homeland security, this legislation will help 
     streamline and rationalize the process by which grants are 
     made to individual cities and metropolitan regions based on 
     relative threat, vulnerability, and consequences faced by an 
     area from a terrorist attack.
       As a nationwide organization, the NTC feels the funding 
     formula proposed in this bill promotes a better level of 
     preparedness and brings some predictability to states for 
     planning purposes. In addition, S. 21 adopts new 
     accountability measures to ensure homeland security grants 
     are used effectively and appropriately.
       We appreciate your leadership and support of the law 
     enforcement community, and would like to offer any assistance 
     we can provide for the successful passage of S. 21.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Casey Perry,
     Chairman.
                                  ____



                                    Fraternal Order of Police,

                                    Washington, DC, June 21, 2005.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chairman and Senator Lieberman: I am writing to 
     advise you of the position of the Fraternal Order of Police 
     on S. 21, the ``Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act,'' 
     which was favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs in May of this year.
       Almost four years have passed since the terrorist attacks 
     on New York and northern Virginia, and at that time it has 
     become clear that the current system of distributing Federal 
     homeland security grants needs to be reformed. Under the 
     current system, not enough of those funds are being targeted 
     to our Nation's primary goal-preventing future terrorist 
     attacks. Your legislation recognizes the fact that the 
     majority of Federal funds have been directed toward 
     ``recovery and response'' operations, too often at the 
     expense of efforts to prevent future attacks. The Homeland 
     Security Advisory Committee (HSAC) Task Force on State and 
     Local Homeland Security Funding reached this conclusion in 
     its final report, issued last June:
       The Task Force found that the vast majority of funds 
     received thus far by State, county, municipal and tribal 
     governments have been spent on emergency response equipment 
     and related training. . . However, the Task Force also notes 
     that the loss of life, human suffering, social instability, 
     and financial repercussions that would result from a 
     successful terrorist attack mandates that State, county, 
     municipal and tribal governments take aggressive, objectively 
     measurable, and well planned steps to prevent such an attack 
     from occurring. . . Accordingly, the Task Force strongly 
     recommends that State and local governments consider 
     allocating these and future resources to enhance the ability 
     of State, county, municipal and tribal governments to detect 
     and prevent future acts of terrorism.
       The Fraternal Order of Police strongly agrees with the 
     findings of the Task Force and believes that the best way to 
     ensure that these resources are used for prevention is the 
     authorization of the current Law Enforcement Terrorism 
     Prevention Program (LETPP), which is designed to assist law 
     enforcement agencies in developing the capabilities to 
     detect, deter, disrupt, and prevent acts of terrorism. The 
     LETPP allows Federal funds to be used by State and local 
     governments to improve information sharing to preempt 
     terrorist attacks, harden targets to reduce their 
     vulnerability to attack, enhance interoperable communication 
     systems, and to support overtime expenses related to the 
     homeland security plan.
       Your legislation is the only bill which formally authorizes 
     this important program. The reported version of S. 21 would 
     allow up to 25 percent of the authorized level of all grant 
     funds to be used for the LETPP, a level which we strongly 
     urge you to consider making the minimum, rather than the 
     maximum, authorized level. This would be consistent both with 
     the needs of the law enforcement community that is working 
     every hour of every day to prevent the next terrorist attack 
     from occurring and with the final recommendations of the 
     HSAC's Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security 
     Funding.
       Ensuring that all communities achieve and maintain the 
     appropriate response and recover capacity for terrorist 
     incidents is, and always will be, a critical component of any 
     homeland security plan. However, it is the goal of law 
     enforcement to ensure that we never have a terrorist incident 
     to respond to or recovery from--we want to stop the attack 
     before it ever occurs. For this reason, we need a greater 
     focus on prevention than is currently the case when 
     allocating Federal homeland security funds. We believe that 
     the authorization of the LETPP is the best way to achieve 
     this goal and the F.O.P. strongly supports your efforts in 
     this regard.
       I look forward to S. 21 being considered on the floor and 
     ultimately reconciled with similar legislation that passed 
     the House of Representatives with our support in early May. 
     On behalf of the more than 321,000 members of the Fraternal 
     Order of Police, I want to thank you for reaching out to the 
     F.O.P. to seek our input on this bill and for recognizing the 
     critical role that law enforcement plays in securing our 
     homeland. We appreciate your leadership on this issue and 
     look forward to working with you to enact meaningful grant 
     reform at the Department of Homeland Security. If I can be of 
     any further help, please do not hesitate to contact me or 
     Executive Director Jim Pasco through our Washington office.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Chuck Canterbury,
     National President.
                                  ____

                                              National Association


                                of Police Organizations, Inc.,

                                     Washington, DC, May 31, 2005.
     Re: S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 
         2005

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the National Association of 
     Police Organizations (``NAPO'') representing more than 
     235,000 law enforcement officers throughout the United 
     States, I am writing to ask you to cosponsor S. 21, the 
     Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005. This 
     legislation will reform the homeland security grant system to 
     make it more effective, efficient, and accountable. It will 
     also ensure a significant role for state and local law 
     enforcement in preventing the next terrorist attack.
       Sponsored by Senators Collins and Lieberman, S. 21 was 
     reported out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs Committee on April 13, 2005 and is expected to be 
     considered by the full Senate in the next few weeks. S. 21 
     ensures that law enforcement will have a seat at the table 
     when homeland security resource allocation decisions are 
     being made.
       Unlike other homeland security grant proposed, S. 21 
     ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks--not just 
     response effects--received a significant share of the 
     homeland security funds. Under S. 21, up to 25% of the 
     homeland security grant funding will be used for law 
     enforcement terrorism prevention purposes, including 
     information sharing, target hardening, threat recognition, 
     terrorist

[[Page S8121]]

     intervention activities, interoperable communication, and 
     overtime expenses occurred in support of federal agencies for 
     increased border security and training.
       S. 21 will also foster the development and enforcement of 
     voluntary consensus standards to improve the safety of first 
     respondent equipment and encourage the expansion of the SAVER 
     program, which provide first respondent with ``consumer 
     report'' type information on the performance of various 
     brands of equipment relied on by law enforcement officers 
     every day.
       We need to be sure that state and local enforcement are 
     properly supported, trained and equipped to prevent terrorism 
     before it occurs. S. 21 will ensure that state and local law 
     enforcement receive a fair share of federal assistance 
     dedicated for prevention purposes.
       NAPO therefore urges you to cosponsor S. 21. The 
     appropriate contacts to do so are Jon Nass with the majority 
     staff of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs, and Beth Grossman with the minority 
     staff.
           Sincerely,
                                               William J. Johnson,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                               International Union


                              of Police Associations, AFL-CIO,

                                                     June 3, 2005.
     Senator Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Senator Joe Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Lieberman: On behalf of the more 
     than 110,000 field level law enforcement personnel that the 
     International Union of Police Associations, AFL-CIO 
     represents throughout the United States, I urge you to do 
     everything in your power to convince your colleagues to 
     support S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 
     2005.
       The men and women we represent form the very first line 
     that protects us against terrorist attacks and are the very 
     first to respond to any actions taken against our citizens. 
     Local and state law enforcement officers both need and 
     deserve the support that S. 21 will provide them.
       When critical resources are allocated, these brave men and 
     women who willingly rush in to harm's way deserve the 
     guarantees that S. 21 provides--that ensures they will have 
     these resources. Resources that to date have too often been 
     denied them.
       We in law enforcement are constantly held accountable for 
     our decisions and actions. It is time that federal decision 
     makers are held to the same standard of accountability. S. 21 
     will end the old practices that too often resulted in state 
     and local law enforcement receiving little or no support. It 
     ensures that once allocation decisions are made, we will be 
     given an explanation for those grant allocation decisions.
       We know from long experience that prevention must come 
     before response. Swift and effective response should only be 
     necessary when those who would do us harm circumvent 
     prevention. By requiring that up to twenty-five percent of 
     the homeland security grant funding will be used for law 
     enforcement terrorism prevention purposes, we will be able to 
     place prevention in its proper place, in front of response. 
     We will have better information sharing, target hardening, 
     threat recognition, terrorist intervention activities, 
     interoperable communication, and overtime expenses to carry 
     out our mission of protecting the American public. Only in 
     this way will we be able to build our nation's prevention 
     capabilities from the ground up.
       Please take this message from those on the front line and 
     use it to your best advantage in convincing your colleagues 
     to rally full support for S. 21.
       Thank you for your commitment and your consideration.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                    Sam A. Cabral,
     International President.
                                  ____

                                      International Association of


                                             Chiefs of Police,

                                    Alexandria, VA, June 21, 2005.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the International 
     Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am writing to 
     encourage you to cosponsor S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant 
     Enhancement Act of 2005. The bill, sponsored by Senators 
     Susan Collins and Joseph Lieberman, is designed to reform 
     homeland security grant system in order to make it both more 
     accountable and more effective, thereby increasing the 
     ability of our nation's law enforcement agencies to prevent 
     terrorist attacks before they occur.
       As you will see in the attached report, ``From Hometown 
     Security to Homeland Security,'' it is the IACP's belief that 
     in our national efforts to develop the capacity to respond 
     and recover from a terrorists' attack, we have failed to 
     focus on the importance of building our capacity to prevent a 
     terrorist attack from occurring in the first place. While 
     planning their attacks, terrorists often live in our 
     communities, travel on our highways, and shop in our stores. 
     As we have discovered in the aftermath of the September 11th 
     attacks, several of the terrorists involved had routine 
     encounters with state and local law enforcement officials in 
     the weeks and months prior to the attack. If state, tribal, 
     and local law enforcement officers are adequately equipped 
     and trained, they can be invaluable assets in efforts to 
     identify and apprehend suspected terrorists before they 
     strike.
       By authorizing for the first time the Law Enforcement 
     Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), S. 21 makes prevention 
     a priority, and partners the federal government with state 
     and local law enforcement. Under the bill, up to twenty-five 
     percent of all authorized homeland security grant funding 
     will be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention 
     purposes, including information sharing, target hardening, 
     threat recognition, terrorist intervention activities, 
     interoperable communication, and overtime expenses occurred 
     in support of federal agencies for increased border security 
     and training.
       In addition, recognizing how important prevention is, 
     Senators Collins and Lieberman have agreed that they will 
     work to amend S. 21 when it gets to the Senate floor to 
     ensure that a set percentage of homeland security grant 
     dollars are fenced off for LETPP, thus establishing a 
     predictable, significant funding homeland security funding 
     source for this critically-important program. Successful 
     terrorism prevention requires that state, tribal, and local 
     law enforcement across the country continue to receive LETPP 
     funds.
       To date, the vast majority of federal homeland security 
     efforts have focused on increasing our national capabilities 
     to respond to and recover from a terrorist attack. These 
     efforts are important and must continue. But we must not 
     ignore the need to build the capacity to prevent attacks. S. 
     21 strikes a proper balance, and it has the IACP's support.
       We therefore urge you to cosponsor S. 21. If you wish to 
     co-sponsor the bill, your staff should contact Jon Nass with 
     the majority staff of the Senate Committee on Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs, and Beth Grossman with the 
     minority staff.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Joseph Estey,
     President.
                                  ____

                                                 United Federation


                                     of Police Officers, Inc.,

                              Briarcliff Manor, NY, June 25, 2005.
     Re: S. 21, The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 
         2005

     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: On behalf of the members of the United 
     Federation of Police Officers, Inc. and the United Federation 
     of Security Officers, Inc., I am writing to ask you to 
     cosponsor S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act 
     of 2005. This legislation will reform the homeland security 
     grant system to make it more effective, efficient, and 
     accountable. It will also ensure a significant role for state 
     and local law enforcement and Security Officers in preventing 
     the next terrorist attack.
       Sponsored by Senators Collins and Lieberman, S. 21 was 
     reported out of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
     Affairs committee on April 13, 2005 and is expected to be 
     considered by the full Senate within the next several days. 
     S. 21 ensures that law enforcement will have a seat at the 
     table when homeland security resource allocation decisions 
     are being made.
       Unlike other homeland security grant proposals, S. 21 
     ensures that the prevention of terrorist attacks, not just 
     response efforts, receive a significant share of the homeland 
     security funds. Under S. 21, up to 25 percent of the homeland 
     security grant funding will be used for law enforcement 
     terrorism prevention purposes including information sharing, 
     target hardening, threat recognition, terrorist intervention 
     activities, interoperable communication, and overtime 
     expenses occurred in support of federal agencies for 
     increased border security and training.
       S. 21 will also foster the development and enforcement of 
     voluntary consensus standards to improve the safety of first 
     responder equipment and encourage the expansion of the SAVER 
     program, which provides first responders with ``consumer 
     report'' type information on the performance of various 
     brands of equipment relied on by law enforcement and security 
     officers every day.
       We need to be sure that state and local law enforcement and 
     security officers are properly supported, trained and 
     equipped to prevent terrorism before it occurs. S. 21 will 
     ensure that these agencies will receive a fair share of 
     federal assistance dedicated for prevention purposes.
       Thank you for your support and attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Ralph M. Purdy,
     President.
                                  ____

                                         International Brotherhood


                                           of Police Officers,

                                     Alexandria, VA, July 7, 2005.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Collins: On behalf of the International 
     Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO), representing 25,000 
     rank-and-file officers from across the nation as the largest 
     police union voice in the AFL-CIO, I would like to thank you 
     for your introducing S. 21, the ``Homeland Security Grant 
     Enhancement Act of 2005'' and inform you of IBPO's 
     wholehearted endorsement of this legislation. S. 21

[[Page S8122]]

     aims to make Homeland Security grants more effective and 
     efficient. It further, rightly ensures significant support 
     for state and local law enforcement in their work of 
     terrorism prevention.
       As the devastating loss of innocent life from this 
     morning's terrorist attacks in London England become fully 
     understood, America is again tragically reminded that those 
     who wish to derail our way of life and trumpet subjection 
     over the goals of freedom will be unrelenting in their 
     efforts of tyranny. The vigilant struggle against such aims 
     in alleviated by proper response and prevention, which this 
     legislation rightly works to guarantee.
       Under S. 21, up to 25 percent of the Homeland Security 
     grant funding will be used for law enforcement terrorism 
     prevention purposes. This will include information sharing, 
     target hardening, threat recognition, terrorist intervention 
     activities, interoperable communication, and overtime 
     expenses occurred in support of federal agencies for 
     increased border security and training.
       S. 21 will foster the development and enforcement of 
     voluntary consensus standards to improve the safety of first 
     responder equipment. It will also encourage the expansion of 
     the SAVER program, which provides first responders with 
     ``consumer report'' type information on the performance of 
     various brands of equipment relied upon by the law 
     enforcement community.
       IBPO will work to ensure passage of this important 
     legislation and we thank you for your continued support of 
     our nation's law enforcement officers.
           Sincerely,
     Steve Lenkart,
       Special Assistant to the President, Director of Legislative 
     Affairs.
                                  ____

         National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
           Executives,
                                    Alexandria, VA, July 11, 2005.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Collins and Lieberman: The National 
     Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), an 
     organization of nearly 3,500 primarily African-American law 
     enforcement CEOs and command level officials writes to 
     express its support and appreciation for S.21 the Homeland 
     Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2005.
       S. 21 allocates up to 25 percent of homeland security grant 
     funding to address the critical training, equipment and human 
     resource needs of state and local law enforcement agencies in 
     a proactive manner that will allow for greatly needed 
     prevention efforts.
       Our members are on the front lines in the war on terror, 
     and when terror strikes our communities we want them 
     prepared. We want our citizens working in partnership with 
     law enforcement. We want our communities to know that their 
     law enforcement agencies have the necessary resources to 
     minimize death and injury. We need the funding that S. 21 
     provides, for: planning, training, inter-operable 
     communications, proper protective equipment, information 
     exchange and community based terrorism prevention programs.
       We believe that S. 21 will provide state and local 
     officials with not only resources, but also a voice in what 
     is needed to best protect their community. We trust that your 
     colleagues will make a positive commitment to those who are 
     sworn to keep the homeland secure.
       Thank you for your leadership on this issue.
           Sincerley,
                                                 Clarence Edwards,
     National President.
                                  ____



                               National Governors Association,

                                   Washington, DC, April 22, 2005.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     Chair, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
     Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Homeland Security and 
         Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Madam Chair and Senator Lieberman: We would like to 
     thank you and the Committee for your attention to state 
     concerns in S. 21, the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement 
     Act of 2005. The bill appropriately acknowledges the need to 
     assure that each state and territory is prepared to prevent, 
     respond to and recover from a terrorist attack. Similarly, we 
     appreciate your recognition that homeland security funding 
     and planning should be coordinated through each Governor's 
     office for maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of 
     homeland security spending and, by extension, the safety of 
     our citizens.
       After each state and territory receives a base amount, we 
     believe that additional funding be distributed based on an 
     assessment of risks and threats, the calculation of which 
     should be as transparent as possible given the classified 
     nature of the threat information. Risk and threat assessments 
     should be based on all threats, including, but not limited 
     to, ports, borders, agricultural food production and supply, 
     water supply, fuel, and computer systems.
       The Governors appreciate your recognition and inclusion of 
     state and local officials in determining the essential 
     capabilities for first responders. Our homeland security 
     personnel must be included in determining the levels and 
     competences needed in planning and equipping to prevent, 
     prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism and other 
     catastrophic events; and must be given the flexibility to set 
     priorities based on local or regional needs, while reaching 
     nationally determined preparedness levels.
       In addition, Governors support the continuation of separate 
     funding sources for pre-9/11 programs for law enforcement, 
     public health and emergency management; the establishment of 
     a ``one-stop shop'' to assist state and local officials with 
     information regarding homeland security; the flexibility to 
     use homeland security funds among programs for equipment, 
     training, exercises, and planning; and the ability to pay 
     overtime expenses regarding training activities consistent 
     with the goals outlined in the state plan.
       To effectively protect our states and territories from 
     potential terrorist events, all sectors of government must be 
     part of an integrated plan to prevent, deter, respond to and 
     recover from a terrorist act. For the plan to work, it is 
     essential that it be funded through a predictable and 
     sustainable mechanism both during its development, and in its 
     implementation. A minimum allocation to each state and 
     multiyear authorization levels of funding will provide the 
     predictability necessary to implement statewide plans that 
     will assist Governors in securing our nation.
       We appreciate the time and attention you have given to some 
     concerns in drafting this measure and look forward to working 
     with you as the bill moves through Senate.
           Sincerely,
     Governor Ruth Ann Minner,
       Delaware, Lead Governor on Homeland Security.
     Governor Mitt Romney,
       Massachusetts, Lead Governor on Homeland Security.
                                  ____

         National Emergency Management Association,
                                     Washington, DC, July 7, 2005.
     Hon. Susan M. Collins,
     Chair, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
         Committee, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     Ranking Member, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental 
         Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators: On behalf of the National Emergency 
     Management Association (NEMA), I would like to thank you for 
     your efforts to enhance the state homeland security grants 
     program in order to build a stronger national emergency 
     response system. NEMA is particularly encouraged by 
     provisions in S. 21 that would continue coordinating federal 
     homeland security funds through the nation's Governors to 
     ensure coordination of funding with priorities identified by 
     the state domestic preparedness plan.
       We strongly support the inclusion of a state minimum level 
     of funding for capacity building included in S. 21. State and 
     local capacity building will be increasingly important as we 
     deal with the requirements of Homeland Security Presidential 
     Directive 8 on Preparedness. Additionally, we support efforts 
     to increase state and local flexibility on the use of federal 
     homeland security funds. States and localities have unique 
     needs for addressing homeland security preparedness, as 
     identified in their individual state plans. Further, we also 
     support provisions in S. 21 that would eliminate duplicative 
     planning requirements for state and local governments.
       We are also appreciative of your recognition that a match 
     requirement would be too burdensome for state governments to 
     address, especially as we address matters of national 
     security. Additionally, the provision in your bill that 
     creates a Task Force on Essential Capabilities is critical to 
     ensuring that state and local governments, as well as 
     emergency responders are involved in identifying national 
     guidelines from early in the process of development.
       Thank you for your contributions to emergency management 
     and homeland security. We truly appreciate the strides that 
     you are making in building upon national capacity to prevent, 
     prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism, as well as all 
     disasters.
       We look forward to continuing to work with you in 
     continuing to develop your legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Dave Liebersbach,
       NEMA President, Director, Alaska Division of Homeland 
     Security and Emergency Management.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there are other issues as well that are 
very important to comment on. Another one is that the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment does not include adequate accountability measures. We know 
that we need tough accountability measures, such as what is included in 
the Collins-Lieberman amendment. Such

[[Page S8123]]

measures, for example, include a requirement for a GAO audit. We would 
also require in our amendment--in contrast to the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment--that all spending be tied to achieving essential prevention 
and preparedness goals.
  This is an important point. We cannot afford to have scarce homeland 
security dollars wasted on leather jackets in the District of Columbia 
or be used to buy air-conditioned garbage trucks for a New Jersey city. 
We need to make sure the expenditures are wise and appropriate, and the 
tough accountability measures included in the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment will do that.
  I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is silent on an 
authorization level, and it doesn't attempt to restore the $900 million 
in cuts since fiscal year 2004. Only our amendment seeks to stop the 
reduction of funding for first responders by authorizing a significant 
level of funding. We didn't go overboard. It is a level of funding that 
was provided in fiscal year 2004; it is $2.9 billion.
  While we are making progress every year on becoming better prepared 
to prevent or respond to attacks, we are a long way from completing the 
task. I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment excludes from risk-
based funding substantially all the cities that have not received funds 
in the past. This is an important point. While the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment purports to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to 
distribute funds as he sees fit based on risk, in reality it 
effectively restricts the universe of cities that could apply for risk-
based funding to those that have received risk-based funding in the 
past. In this sense, it perpetuates the status quo.
  If a city or region has not received risk-based funding in the past 
and then is faced with a potential threat, for example, due to the 
construction of a new chemical facility or another piece of critical 
infrastructure or because it is hosting a large event, it is out of 
luck; it is ineligible to apply for risk-based funding under the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.
  Finally, let me show you the impact--on this chart in green and 
white--of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. The States in green are 
better off under the Collins-Lieberman approach--the approach supported 
by the occupant of the chair. It is virtually every State. I also point 
out that those seven states in white don't do badly. They do very well 
because we are doubling the amount of money that is risk-based, and we 
are also providing for a reasonable minimum allocation.
  There it is. I hope my colleagues will consider this. A lot of work 
went into crafting this amendment. It is a comprehensive approach for a 
grant program for which we have appropriated billions of dollars, but 
never authorized. Let's do this right. Let's adopt the bipartisan 
Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am glad to summarize on our side. The 
last opportunity I had to speak, I said that there is a very 
significant difference, which Senator Collins compellingly 
demonstrated, between the Collins-Lieberman approach to contributing 
these funds and the Cornyn-Feinstein approach. Of course, I think ours 
is much more fair.
  The amendment Senator Collins and I are introducing is an amendment 
to the underlying appropriations bill. I want to stress the differences 
between our amendment and the underlying bill. The first goes to 
funding.
  Here is a sad story in the midst of an increasing concern about 
terrorism. In 2004, the Federal Government appropriated $2.9 billion to 
the States and localities in homeland security grants. In 2005, that 
number was reduced to $2.3 billion. The President's budget for 2006 
recommended slightly over $2 billion. The appropriations bill that is 
before us now has slightly over $1.9 billion.
  Senator Collins and I do what we think is the minimum we should be 
doing to protect our people from the threat of terrorism here at home. 
We went back to the 2004 level of $2.9 billion. So we increase by $1 
billion the amount of money authorized in the underlying bill.
  Secondly, we have a predictable formula. It is not ad hoc every year. 
It will tell local law enforcement what they can expect to get.
  Third, it is a balanced formula. Most of it is based on risk. The 
rest gives a minimum to each State. Why a minimum to each State? 
Because who knows where the terrorists will strike next? A lot of 
emphasis has been put on risk analysis here, Mr. President. I repeat 
that risk analysis is an educated guess about what these insane, 
inhumane, hateful terrorists will do next to strike at America.
  All of America is vulnerable and all of America needs help. That is 
why the National Governors Association supports our amendment and most 
law enforcement agencies do as well.
  I thank the Chair and urge support of the amendment. I yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 54 seconds 
remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senator Collins and 
Senator Lieberman, and particularly Senators Cornyn, Schumer, 
Lautenberg, and Martinez, who spoke on behalf of our amendment.
  Let me make clear, our amendment does not in any way, shape, or form, 
we believe, interfere with the authorizing committee. The authorizing 
committee has the absolute right to set whatever standards it might 
want to in operations. What we are trying to do is see that this huge 
new bureaucracy, which has been set up under the Department of Homeland 
Security, with all of its robust new intelligence capabilities, is able 
to put forward a plan and have that plan be funded, and that plan will 
be based on risk and threat and vulnerability. And, in fact, that is 
what Secretary Chertoff says in his letter to us, that he and the 
President want at least 90 percent of the funds devoted on a risk, 
threat, and vulnerability basis.
  He also says they have come up with 36 essential capabilities they 
believe are critical in preventing another terrorist attack.
  I don't think we should go to 60-40. I truly don't believe places 
should get money just to increase whatever it is they can increase with 
their own funds. I really believe that because the money is limited, it 
has to go to places where there are risks, where we know there are 
targets, where these targets have figured actionable intelligence that 
has reached us. So that is what we try to do.
  Let me summarize once again. Under the underlying bill, the Homeland 
Security appropriations bill, there is $1.339 billion based on risk. 
The Collins-Lieberman amendment has $1.155 billion based on risk, 60 
percent of the dollars. It is, in essence, less than the underlying 
bill. What we have tried to do is increase the amount on risk. So under 
the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, there is $1.667 billion based on risk. 
That 87 percent of the available dollars is based on risk.
  This does not take anybody out of applying. This does not say this 
city cannot apply or this town cannot apply. What it says is, if you 
apply, you are going to be judged on risk, threat, and vulnerability. I 
actually think that when you have limited numbers of dollars, that is 
what you have to do.
  My friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, mentioned the 
Bali bombing. And, yes, one might say that is not the capital of 
Indonesia. But, on the other hand, if we look at Baghdad, if we look at 
Beirut, if we look at most of the places where these attacks take 
place, they are in highly symbolic places where the economic and 
individual damage is large.
  When it comes to the United States, many of us fear a large attack, a 
major attack. So we have to figure, based on intelligence, where that 
attack is going to come down. Yes, someone might come in through a 
port, or they might come over the southwest border from Mexico. This is 
why we are trying to tighten our borders. All of that is true, but we 
have to figure, if that big attack takes place, where is it going to 
take place? What is the first response going to be? How fast is it 
going to be?
  The fact is that the British people have done this. They put an 
emphasis on London. Therefore, when those bombs blew up, the response 
was fast, and the speed of the response was able

[[Page S8124]]

to save lives. So it is a kind of prototype, if you will, of what we 
are trying to achieve here.
  For once, I am on the same note as the administration. We would like 
to see as much money as possible go to cities based on risk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is what our amendment does. I hope this body 
will vote yes.
  Have I used all my time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1200

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside and that amendment No. 1200 be stated by the 
clerk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd], for himself, Mr. 
     Kennedy, Mr. DeWine, Mr. Corzine, and Mr. Dodd, proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1200.

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       For necessary expenses for programs authorized by the 
     Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 
     2201 et seq.), $100,000,000 shall be available to carry out 
     section 33 (15 U.S.C. 2229) for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005, to be available immediately upon 
     enactment, and to remain available until September 30, 2007.

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the clerk.
  I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be added as 
cosponsors: Messrs. Kennedy, DeWine, Corzine, and Dodd. That is it. 
That completes the list.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a very important 
group of men and women and to offer an amendment on their behalf.
  All across this land, there are men and women who put their lives on 
the line every day fighting fires, over a million firefighters, and 
over three-fourths of them are volunteers. So when one reads a list of 
the responsibilities firefighters bear each day, it reads like a litany 
of good public service: fire suppression, wild land firefighting, 
hazardous materials response, code enforcement, fire prevention, 
education, explosives response, investigation, industrial fire 
prevention and safety, and counterterrorism.
  So in this high-technology, post-9/11 world, it is not our father's 
fire service. Firefighters require the latest equipment and training to 
cope with changing threats. When our Nation fell under attack on 
September 11, 2001, firefighters raced into buildings, buildings 
engulfed in flames, to save people.
  Today, over 8,000 firefighters are battling wildfires in eight States 
that threaten our environment and property. When a house is on fire, 
firefighters arrive quickly on the scene to rescue people and their 
pets. They rush into burning buildings to pull people from the mayhem. 
When vehicles spill hazardous, even toxic materials, firefighters clean 
up the spill, thereby protecting nearby populations.
  They do all of this often without proper equipment, often without 
enough training, often without sufficient staffing but--but, but--they 
do it anyway. Yes, they do it anyway, and we are all better off for 
their bravery.
  One could go on and on about these heroes, but words are meaningless 
without action. That is why I am offering an amendment that will 
restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, a 
program that provides equipment and training for these courageous 
public servants.
  So I say, restore funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program because the bill that is before the Senate reduces funding for 
firefighter grants by $100 million in comparison with last year. There 
is no justification for this cut. Applications for fiscal year 2005 
totaled $2.7 billion. With the funding that Congress approved, the 
Department of Homeland Security funded less than one-quarter of the 
eligible applications.
  Instead of responding to this significant demand for firefighter 
equipment and training, the administration proposed to cut firefighting 
grants for fiscal year 2006 from $715 million to $500 million, a 
reduction of 30 percent.
  Our leader, Homeland Security Subcommittee Chairman Gregg, has done 
all that he can to address the greatest needs in this Homeland Security 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006. But our bank account--ah, 
now, there is where the problem is--our bank account was pilfered by a 
budget proposal from the White House. The White House proposed that the 
Appropriations Committee raise $1.68 billion in fees by raising airline 
passenger fees. The problem is, the Appropriations Committee does not 
have authority to increase such fees. So what happened? This left the 
committee with a deep hole to fill, and as a result, our firefighters 
are $100 million short.
  I received a letter on June 10 of this year from Chief Robert DiPoli, 
retired, president of the International Association of Fire Chiefs. I 
shall make this letter a part of the Record shortly but not at this 
moment.
  In the letter, Chief DiPoli tells me that the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program and the Staffing for Adequate Fire and 
Emergency Response Firefighters, or SAFER, Program are the highest 
priorities of the members of the association. He goes on to state that 
although the fire departments are locally funded and operated, they do 
provide a national service in times of crisis, whether natural or man 
made.
  Chief DiPoli has said that the Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program is the greatest program ever to hit the streets because fire 
departments cannot fund all of their needs through bean suppers and 
bingo games. I have to agree. I agree.
  According to a recent study by the U.S. Fire Administration entitled 
``A Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service,'' only 13 percent of the 
fire departments have the equipment and training to handle an incident 
involving chemical or biological agents, and half of all fire engines 
are at least 15 years old. Ten percent of fire departments in cities 
with at least one building over four stories high or higher do not have 
adequate ladders or aerial apparatus. Overall, fire departments in the 
United States do not have enough portable radios to equip half of the 
responders on a shift, and the percentage is even higher in small 
communities.
  So who would want to be a firefighter? I would not want to be, with 
all of that shortage of equipment.
  One-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped with self-
contained breathing apparatus.
  How about that? This equipment is not cheap. A portable radio costs 
$950. A chemical agent detector costs $8,585. An air pack costs $4,424. 
A defibrillator costs $1,695. Night vision goggles cost $3,210. 
Uniforms and other basic gear cost $1,000. So it is no surprise to me 
that the demand for this program has grown from $2.1 billion for fiscal 
year 2003 to $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2004 to $2.7 billion for this 
year.
  What does surprise me, what disappoints me, is that in the face of 
documented needs--now these are not just ``suspicion'' needs or 
``maybe'' needs or ``perhaps'' needs. What does surprise me, what 
disappoints me, is that in the face of documented needs for better 
equipment and growing demand for this program, the bill cuts the 
funding for equipping and training our firefighters.
  I am pleased that the bill provides an increase for the SAFER 
firefighter hiring program. I commend my chairman, Senator Gregg, for 
his support for the program. Overall, firefighter grants are cut by 
$100 million. Firefighters in both big cities and small towns across 
this land face new challenges every day, while maintaining their 
traditional missions. They should not rely on bean suppers and bingo 
games to raise the funds to pay for their needs on the job. 
Individually and collectively, we are safer with properly equipped and 
trained firefighters. As a Nation, we rely on their capabilities. 
Therefore, Federal dollars are wisely invested in the effort.
  That brings me to the present moment. I offer this amendment to 
provide $100 million to the Assistance to

[[Page S8125]]

Firefighters Grant Program. By approving this amendment, the Senate 
will be answering the call, will be saying, We hear you, we hear what 
you are saying, will be answering the call from our firefighters.
  This is a modest amendment. It simply restores firefighter grants 
funding to the fiscal year 2005 level of $715 million. Even if this 
amendment is adopted, the firefighting program will be almost $300 
million below the level authorized by Congress. I wish we could do 
more, but this is the least we can do.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to adopt the 
amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter to which I earlier 
referred from Chief Robert A. DiPoli be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                                     International


                                   Association of Fire Chiefs,

                                       Fairfax, VA, June 10, 2005.
     Hon. Robert C. Byrd,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Committee 
         on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: As you craft appropriations legislation 
     for Fiscal Year 2006 (FY 2006), I would like to draw your 
     attention to two critical federal grant programs for first 
     responders: the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program 
     (commonly known as the ``FIRE Act'') and the Staffing for 
     Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters Act of 2003 
     (commonly known as ``SAFER''). The FIRE Act and SAFER are two 
     of our members' highest priorities, and we ask that you 
     provide full funding for both programs in your bill.
       Establisbed 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 are the world's 
     leading experts in firefighting, emergency medical services, 
     terrorism response, hazardous materials spills, natural 
     disasters, search and rescue, and public safety legislation.
       Though fire departments are locally funded and operated, 
     they provide a national service in times of crisis, whether 
     natural or man-made. That means preparing for everything from 
     hurricanes and wildfires to potential acts of terrorism. 
     America's fire service is ready, willing and able to answer 
     the public call.
       To do so, however, America's fire service must be 
     adequately staffed, trained and equipped. In December 2002, 
     the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) and the National Fire 
     Protection Association (NFPA) issued a joint study entitled A 
     Needs Assessment of the U.S. Fire Service. While the federal 
     government has since begun funding state and local homeland 
     security programs, the NFPA believes that the following 
     statistics still reflect the problems that America's fire 
     service faces in meeting basic mission needs. For example:
       Half of all fire engines are at least 15 years old.
       On the whole, fire departments do not have enough portable 
     radios to equip more than about half of the emergency 
     responders on a shift.
       About one-third of firefighters per shift are not equipped 
     with self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), and nearly 
     half of SCBA units are at least 10 years old.
       An estimated 57,000 firefighters lack personal protective 
     clothing.
       This report also documented a significant deficiency in 
     firefighter staffing. NFPA Standard 1710 requires that a 
     minimum of four firefighters respond to an event. An alarming 
     number of both volunteer and career fire departments are 
     unable to meet this safety standard:
       The USFA/NFPA report found that at least 10% of volunteer 
     firefighters serve in fire departments that cannot achieve a 
     standard minimum response to a mid-day house fire.
       A 2003 report by the NFPA entitled Preparing for Terrorism: 
     Estimated Costs to U.S. Local Fire Departments estimated that 
     more than 50,000 new career firefighters are needed to 
     provide an adequate baseline level of response. To adequately 
     respond to a terrorist attack, the nation would need 75,000 
     to 85,000 new career firefighters.
       To help address some of the glaring deficiencies in 
     equipment and training, Congress passed the FIRE Act in 2000. 
     Congressional, administration, and fire service officials 
     alike have called the FIRE Act one of the very best federal 
     grant programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 
     issued a program analysis in 2003, proclaiming that the FIRE 
     Act works. In USDA's own words, the FIRE Act ``has been 
     highly effective in increasing the safety and effectiveness 
     of grant recipients . . . 99 percent of program participants 
     are satisfied with the program's ability to meet the needs of 
     their department . . . [and] 97 percent of program 
     participants reported positive impact on their ability to 
     handle fire and fire-related incidents.''
       There are good reasons for the FIRE Act's success, and they 
     are the five pillars of the program. First, funds go directly 
     to local fire departments for the purposes intended. There is 
     no opportunity for the money to get bottlenecked at 
     intermediate levels as with so much other first responder 
     funding. Second, grants are awarded on a competitive basis, 
     and not on a predetermined formula. Third, grant applications 
     are peer-reviewed. Fourth, grants are supplemental only; they 
     may not supplant local funds. The fifth and final pillar of 
     the FIRE Act's success is that it requires a co-payment by 
     the community, and thus ensures community ``buy-in'' to the 
     idea of improving the fire service and, therefore, advancing 
     public safety.
       As with the FIRE Act, SAFER would use a competitive and 
     peer-reviewed application process, and grants would be 
     supplemental only. Grants would be for a four-year period, 
     during which time the federal contribution would phase down 
     from 90 percent to 30 percent. Grantees must commit to 
     retaining new hires for an additional year. At least 20 
     percent of funds would be reserved for volunteer 
     firefighters.
       In FY 2005, Congress funded the FIRE Act at $650 million 
     and SAFER at $65 million. We ask that you include funding at 
     the full authorized levels for these two critical programs in 
     your budget plan for the coming year.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely.
                                    Chief Robert A. DiPoli (Ret.),
                                                        President.

  Mr. BYRD. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I appreciate the proposal of the Senator 
from West Virginia. It is sincere and well intentioned. Obviously, if 
we had the extra money, I would do it. Unfortunately, we are working 
within budget restraints, and the decision was made within this bill to 
move dollars from accounts that we felt had either robust funding or a 
fair amount of money still in the pipeline toward accounts where we 
knew we had great needs such as weapons of mass destruction and border 
security.
  I simply note that in the area of firefighter assistance, since 2003 
we have put $2.5 billion into this initiative. In an earlier amendment, 
we moved money from the equipment funds over to the staffing funds so 
that we now have $115 million in this budget for staffing initiatives, 
which I think is very important because of that $2.5 billion, a very 
small percentage has been spent on staffing. As the Senator from West 
Virginia noted, we need to get people up to speed as to training and 
staffing capabilities.
  We retain still $500 million for equipment in this bill, which is a 
fair number of dollars. We have approximately $715 million in the 
pipeline which has not gone out yet from 2005. Hopefully it will go out 
quickly and soon, but it has not gone out yet. So we know there is a 
fair amount of money in the pipeline.
  Overall, the funding for firefighters, since 2003, is now over $3 
billion, which is a very strong commitment to our firefighter community 
and one which is very appropriate considering, as the Senator from West 
Virginia has so effectively outlined, the risks which these people 
undertake every day for our safety. So we believe that this is a strong 
commitment to the firefighter community. We would like to do more if we 
could do it within this budget context, but we cannot. Unfortunately, 
this amendment would put us outside of the budget guidelines we are 
presently pursuing or subject to.
  In addition, of course, many of these firefighting departments can 
obtain money from their State plans on top of the earmarked funds which 
go to the fire departments, the earmarked firefighting funds of $3 
billion. There is the rather significant and robust commitment of over 
$14 billion which has been made toward first responder activity 
generally, and all of these dollars would theoretically be available to 
fund firefighters.
  Obviously that is not going to happen, but clearly, if the State plan 
decides they need more money in their firefighter community, a State 
plan can allocate that money for those firefighter initiatives beyond 
the money which comes through this $3 billion initiative over the last 
3 years. So this is a strong commitment to the firefighter community, 
and it is an attempt to reorient that commitment so that we focus more 
on staffing than on equipment, which we feel has received a 
disproportionate amount of the funding over the last few years at the 
expense of the staffing and training activities.
  That is where we stand in this bill. I believe the bill is reasonable 
on this point. At the proper time, obviously a point of order will lie 
against this amendment, and I would presume that we would have to make 
it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

[[Page S8126]]

  Mr. BYRD. Would the able chairman yield for a comment?
  I urge the chairman not to raise the budget point of order at this 
time. I wonder if perhaps I might implore the chairman to work with 
Chairman Cochran to approve using a portion of the fiscal year 2005 
allocation for our firefighters so that this amendment would not be 
subject to a point of order. Would the very able chairman be willing to 
give some consideration to my request in this light?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I know the Senator from West Virginia, the 
senior Senator in the Senate and the ranking member of the full 
committee, has discussed this matter with Senator Cochran. I am 
perfectly willing to pursue that course. I am willing to talk with the 
chairman of the full committee on that point, but I think probably from 
the chairman's position--I cannot make his case because I have not 
talked to him about it but suspect his concern is that opens the door 
that could lead to a large amount of authorization from 2005 being 
used, which would then generate outlays in 2006 which would absorb 
money that I suspect the chairman of the full committee feels he is 
going to need in order to meet what is a fairly tight budgetary 
restriction already subjected to the 2006 bill.
  So I can understand if the chairman of the full committee might be 
reticent to accept such a request, but I will certainly be happy to--
well, I will not need to pass it on because I know the Senator from 
West Virginia has, but I would be happy to sit on the sidelines and 
allow these titans to settle this issue.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator would allow me 
further just to say that I thank the chairman for his consideration 
that he is giving to my request. I might add, firefighters and the 
communities they protect ought not to be penalized by inside-the-
beltway procedures. We are in this tough position because the White 
House proposed that the Appropriations Committee raise $1.68 billion by 
increasing airline passenger fees.
  I have gone over this already, but I have to say again, as I said 
earlier, that the Appropriations Committee does not have authority to 
increase these fees. Therefore, we have been left with a gaping hole in 
resources, and this means that our firefighters are going to suffer a 
funding cut of $100 million below the fiscal year 2005 level.
  Some Senators might be surprised to know that the United States has 
one of the highest fire death rates in the industrialized world at 13.5 
deaths per million population. Fires kill more Americans than all 
natural disasters combined. In 2003, 3,925 civilians lost their lives 
as a result of fire, and 111 firefighters were killed in duty-related 
incidents. In that same year, 18,125 civilians suffered injuries that 
occurred as a result of fire. So there is a real need for this funding. 
Communities need the money to buy essential equipment. This is not a 
case of throwing dollars at fire departments so they can buy 
extravagant items.
  This is a very modest amendment. Even with adoption of the amendment, 
the program will still be $300 million below the level authorized by 
Congress. Last year, the Department of Homeland Security was unable to 
approve over $2 billion in eligible applications for equipping and 
training our firefighters because of lack of funding. We ought to do 
everything we can to meet this demand for equipment and training for 
our firefighters.
  The Appropriations Committee currently has $1.058 billion in budget 
authority available under the 302(b) allocation for fiscal year 2005. 
So the reason I have asked my beloved chairman, Senator Gregg, to 
consider discussing this with Chairman Cochran is that if Chairman 
Cochran made just $100 million of this unused allocation available to 
homeland security, this amendment would not be subject to a Budget Act 
point of order.
  I again thank my friend, the chairman, for at least saying that he 
will withhold the point of order, and that he will give this matter 
some further consideration.
  Before I yield the floor, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Lieberman and Mikulski as cosponsors to my amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Obviously I am perfectly happy and do not intend to make 
this point of order until the Senator from West Virginia feels he has 
had adequate time to discuss this matter with the chairman of the full 
committee, and hopefully it can be resolved.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask that prior to the votes which are to 
occur at 5 o'clock on the Feinstein and Collins amendments--I guess the 
Collins amendment will be first--that 4 minutes be equally divided 
between the two sides with 2 minutes under the control of Senator 
Collins and 2 minutes under the control of Senator Feinstein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I make a point of order a quorum is not present.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1162

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 1162.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I offer this amendment together with 
Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kerry], for himself, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, and Mr. Corzine, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1162.

  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent the 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 Inspector General to report to the Congress on 
                               the port)

       On page 100, between lines 11 and 12, insert the following:
       Sec. 519. Within 90 days after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, the Department of Homeland Security's Office of 
     Inspector General shall issue a report to the House and 
     Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House and Senate 
     Committees on Homeland Security, and the Senate Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the steps the 
     Department has taken to comply with the recommendations of 
     the Inspector General's Report on the Port Security Grant 
     Program (OIG-05-10).

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a rather straightforward amendment, 
not very complicated in its scope but important in its scope. I offer 
it together with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine.
  This is an amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security 
inspector general to issue a report to the Congress within 90 days 
detailing the steps which that agency is taking to correct what many 
people feel is amounting now to a dangerous situation of either 
oversight or mismanagement.
  Let me explain that record and why I am concerned about it. Earlier 
this year, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general issued 
an alarming report. We all ought to be very grateful to the IG for the 
issuance of that report. The IG concluded that 4 years after September 
11, the administration, and I quote the IG, ``has no assurance that our 
ports program is protecting the Nation's most critical and vulnerable 
infrastructure and assets.''
  The IG concluded that the program's design hinders its ability to 
direct enough funding to the most vulnerable ports, that available 
critical infrastructure information was not used during the application 
vetting process, that of the $564 million awarded for port security 
grants since September 11--that is over almost a 4-year period--only 
$106 million has actually been spent, that 82 out of 86 projects

[[Page S8127]]

funds for the Office of Domestic Preparedness in 2003 lacked merit, and 
perhaps the most damaging revelation was in 2003 the Transportation 
Security Administration, which funded 811 projects, had only one staff 
member overseeing the entire program.
  That is a situation, according to the inspector general, that leaves 
America more vulnerable to attack. I know my colleagues and, I am 
confident, the President do not want to allow this situation to 
continue.
  What is the best thing we can do to avoid that? Obviously, our 
priorities are reflected in how we choose to spend money and what we do 
with that. When we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act in 
2002, the Coast Guard estimated then it would cost port authorities, 
the private sector, and the Government $7.3 billion to implement its 
requirements. In other words, after the Maritime Transportation 
Security Act of 2002, which was in direct response to what we learned 
needed to be done as a result of September 11, we had a private sector 
and Government estimate of $7.3 billion that needed to be expended in 
order to put America in the place we ought to be for security.
  To date, only $564 million has been awarded for port security grants 
to help port authorities improve security and comply with the law. And 
of that, the IG report states very clearly only $106 million has 
actually been spent as of last year.
  If we put that in perspective, according to the GAO, more funding has 
been spent on the Capitol Visitor Center than was awarded during the 
first four rounds of the port security grant program. If we consider 
that only $106 million out of $7.3 billion that needed to be spent has 
actually been spent, the reality is we have almost five times the 
funding going into the Capitol Visitor Center as is going to protect 
the ports and providing security of our ports in the security program. 
I think that comparison would surprise a lot of Americans.
  A lot of Members have supported spending a little bit more in the 
security for the ports because we believe it is basic to the national 
defense of our country. We know al-Qaida and other terrorists target 
transportation systems. We have seen that since September 11 in Madrid 
and now London. We saw it in 1998 when they bombed the USS Cole as it 
sat docked at a port in Yemen.
  We also know millions of containers enter our country each year 
uninspected. And we are told by the Department of Homeland Security 
that all of the radiation screening equipment purchased after September 
11 will have to be replaced because it is ineffective.
  If a major U.S. port were to be the victim of some kind of container 
attack, that attack could take any number of different forms. There was 
a threat in New York City not long after September 11 which was taken 
very seriously about the potential of a dirty nuclear bomb. There is 
obviously the threat of an actual primitive nuclear weapon of some kind 
being used which, primitive as it might be, could still pack the force 
of a bomb that was used at Hiroshima. That would threaten anywhere 
between 50,000 and 1 million American lives. It could blow a $300 
million to $1.2 trillion hole in our economy in very short order, not 
to mention what it would do with respect to the energy crisis or to the 
larger longer term issue of the overall port security and flow of goods 
we rely on in our international trade. We would have a global economic 
disaster.
  No one can predict in any way that we can set up a fail-safe system. 
I am not suggesting that. But I do know from the information we have 
gleaned from any number of people working on this technology that there 
is a significant advance in the state of the art of technology for 
large-scale container screening. There are a number of different 
tracking systems that are available to secure containers at the place 
of embarkation and guarantee very inexpensively that they have not been 
jimmied or monkeyed with in the course of transit so that we know we 
have a secure container that is going from point of embarkation to 
debarkation. There are any number of things we can do and they are very 
important to the longer term security of the country and not that 
expensive in the end.

  In the Senate, Members have debated previously whether we ought to be 
dedicating more funding. I understand the votes are not there at this 
moment to actually do the funding, but I hope the votes would be there 
to take the IG of Homeland Security seriously. The IG has already 
suggested the deficiencies that exist now. We ought to be looking to 
the IG to further help the Senate make a choice about the future.
  Nearly 4 years after September 11, the administration has yet to 
complete a national maritime security plan that was due to Congress 
last year and they have offered no contingency plans to redirect the 
flow of commerce and keep the economy running in the event there were a 
terrorist attack at a port. All of this is required by Congress now. 
Port authorities, shippers, importers, vessel owners, truckers, and 
other commercial maritime entities have no idea what would be expected 
of them, what the procedures would be if an attack were to occur. We do 
not even know which Federal agency would be in charge. The Coast Guard 
says it will be in charge. The FBI says it is in charge.
  In short, we are unprepared to do all we can do to detect and prevent 
and we are unprepared to deal with the reality if it were to occur. 
Therefore, we understand why the IG was critical of the way this 
program has been thus far administered.
  I ask my colleagues this: If we cannot agree that protecting our 
ports at this point deserves more funding--which many Members believe 
on its face is obvious it ought to get more than the $106 million that 
has been spent or the $560 million allocated--but if we cannot agree on 
that, if we cannot agree it ought to get more funding than the Capitol 
Visitor Center, at least we ought to be able to agree we ought to be 
able to find out from the IG how the money could be spent in a way that 
is not mismanaged and that accomplishes our goals to the best of our 
ability with the funds we have.
  Thus far, the Department of Homeland Security has concurred with 11 
of the 12 recommendations from the IG, and they have promised reforms. 
But what we need to know is whether they have been implemented, they 
are going to be implemented, whether there are further steps we ought 
to be taking. We would be remiss in our responsibilities of oversight 
if we did not follow up on the report of the IG detailing what the 
Department has done to fix the problems.
  That IG report was released in January. Since then there have been no 
congressional hearings on the issue, and no formal report has been 
delivered to Congress. We ought to ask for one. It is important to get 
this information since the Office of State and Local Government 
Coordination and Preparedness, which inherited the program, is going to 
conduct a fifth round of grants beginning in September. So we go into a 
fifth round of grants without understanding what the urgency and 
priorities are according to the goals set out by the Congress itself.
  My amendment is very simple: It requires the inspector general to 
issue another report so that Congress knows the exact state of the 
program now and performs the appropriate level of congressional 
oversight and helps us to improve our port security. I hope this would 
be an amendment we could accept. It should not be that controversial 
and does not provide for the expenditure of money, but provides for 
congressional oversight and accountability that is so important to 
doing our job to improve the security of our country.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Let me join with the Senator from Massachusetts on his 
concern. It is a very important and correctly stated concern about the 
way these funds are being distributed and the slowness with which these 
funds are coming out.
  In this bill we have put forward additional funding for port 
security. We consider that a priority, an area of significant threat. 
We bumped up the amount of money for port security over what the 
President requested. We put in the report language which specifically 
says on page 11 that we believe the Department can expedite awards for 
Homeland Security grants--including a series of them, port security--
and the committee directs the Department to submit a report to the 
committee on

[[Page S8128]]

February 18, 2006, that lays out a schedule for the award of grant 
funds made available by this act as well as any prior year funds that 
remain obligated. If any grant funds are awarded after March 30, 2006, 
the Department should provide a detailed explanation for the delay.
  It is a legitimate concern and something the committee has focused 
on. The Senator's proposal is constructive to the effort. We would be 
happy to accept it by unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent the 
amendment of the Senator from Massachusetts be accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1162) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GREGG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the chairman accepting that and I appreciate 
the efforts of the committee. I know the committee put in additional 
money, about $200 million, and that is important funding.
  Again, I restate, we are looking at a $7.3 billion problem. That is a 
step forward. I am very grateful to the chairman for being willing to 
try to find this report. I hope the Department itself will respond 
accordingly to the language which the committee has appropriately put 
in here to try to get this in scope. We have been talking about this 
for 4 years now and most people would agree, in the major ports--
California, New Jersey, New York, Miami, various places--this is a 
major concern. The communities are increasingly feeling ill-equipped to 
respond appropriately.
  I thank the Chair for his response.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  Mr. President, I call up amendments Nos. 1112 and 1113 and ask for 
their consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka] proposes amendments 
     numbered 1112 and 1113.

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


                           amendment no. 1112

   (Purpose: To increase funding for State and local grant programs)

       On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,281,300,000''.
       On page 77, line 20, strike ``$1,518,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,985,000,000''.
       On page 79, line 21, strike ``$321,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$341,300,000''.


                           amendment no. 1113

 (Purpose: To increase funding for State and local grant programs and 
                     firefighter assistance grants)

       On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$3,281,300,000''.
       On page 77, line 20, strike ``$1,518,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,985,000,000''.
       On page 79, line 21, strike ``$321,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$341,300,000''.
       On page 81, line 24, strike ``$615,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$715,000,000''.
       On page 81, line 24, strike ``$550,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$650,000,000''.

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment to the 
fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act to 
ensure that the men and women on the frontlines of a terrorist attack 
on the United States are not unduly jeopardized by budget cuts. I am 
joined by my colleagues, Senators Lieberman, Harkin, Obama, Murray, 
Corzine, Lautenberg, Bingaman, Durbin, and Schumer.
  Our amendment is simple. It would restore first responder funding to 
fiscal year 2005 levels.
  Last week, the world witnessed a horrific attack on the United 
Kingdom. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to the people who have been 
affected by this atrocity. As we reflect on this tragedy, we should 
remember the images of police, firefighters, and emergency medical 
personnel who ran into the underground tunnels and streets as others 
were evacuated. These images are a reminder that we should not abandon 
America's first responders by cutting their funding.
  The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee had a difficult job 
this year, and I would like to thank the chairman and ranking member 
for their hard work. However, I disagree with their choice to reduce 
first responder funding below fiscal year 2005 appropriated levels and 
in one case even below the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request.
  Our amendment would restore funding by adding a total of $587 million 
to the Homeland Security First Responder Grant Program. The majority, 
$467 million, would go to State and local grants which include the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security 
Initiative. It would also direct $20 million to the Metropolitan 
Medical Response System and $10 million to the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program, commonly known as the FIRE Act grants.
  Our amendment does not address the other first responder grant 
programs that are funded at or above last year's level.
  Let me be clear, Mr. President. This amendment does not seek to 
increase funding over what has already been spent in fiscal year 2005. 
We simply are seeking to prevent a reduction in appropriations for 
first responder grants.
  This country cannot afford to take resources away from its first 
responders at a time when we rely on them now more than ever. In 2003, 
an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations 
estimated that Federal funding for first responders would fall $98.4 
billion short of actual needs between 2004 and 2008. And that figure 
was based on fiscal year 2004 funding levels remaining constant. If 
Congress approves the level of funding proposed in the Senate version 
of H.R. 2360, Federal funding will have decreased by over $592 million 
from the fiscal year 2004 numbers the CFR task force used for their 
calculations.
  The First Response Coalition, a nonprofit organization, reworked CFR 
calculations using the President's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal and 
found the gap would grow to $100.2 billion. The President's budget 
proposal allocates more funding to first responders than the bill we 
are considering today.
  In my home State of Hawaii, this discrepancy between needs and 
funding will be acutely felt as State emergency responders must be 
self-sufficient because there are no neighboring States to rely upon 
for assistance. Hawaii State civil defense must assume that aid from 
the mainland will not arrive for at least 72 hours and, in some cases, 
such as during a hurricane, for 7 days. In addition, the State is 
responsible for not only protecting its own citizens but also the 
approximately 1.4 million tourists and U.S. servicemembers who are in 
Hawaii on any given day.
  The Federal Government is increasingly asking States and localities 
to bear more of the brunt of the war on terror. We ask our first 
responders to run into a burning building not knowing whether they will 
find a small fire or a lethal chemical agent. We ask them to understand 
and execute on a moment's notice the different response protocols for a 
radiological, biological or chemical attack. We ask this of our first 
responders, in addition to carrying out their traditional 
responsibilities. With all we ask of our first responders, it is not 
too much for them to ask us for a constant level of support and 
funding.
  Last month, I joined with Senators Collins, Lieberman, and Levin to 
introduce the Interoperable Communications for First Responders Act 
which would create a grant program dedicated to interoperability 
funding. We were forced to do this because there has not been enough 
funding in the existing first responder programs to meet the country's 
considerable interoperable communication needs. How can we justify 
cutting the funding even more?
  This is not a fiscally irresponsible amendment. I am not proposing an 
increase in spending, simply a restoration of last year's funding.
  Much progress has been made since the tragic attacks of September 11. 
We

[[Page S8129]]

should not undo this progress. We must build upon it. I ask my 
colleagues to consider carefully the needs of the first responders in 
their communities, and I urge support for this important amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Dayton and 
Salazar be added as cosponsors to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. AKAKA. I yield back my time.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I understand the Senator from North Dakota 
wants to ask for 2 or 3 minutes to offer an amendment. I understand we 
are going to have 4 minutes, equally divided, before we begin the vote 
on the Collins and Feinstein amendments. So I would ask unanimous 
consent that I be allowed to speak for about a minute and a half, in 
response to the Senator from Hawaii, that we then go to the Senator 
from North Dakota for the purpose of calling up an amendment, speaking 
for 2 or 3 minutes, and then that we go into the 4-minute presentation 
prior to the vote and the votes occur after that. After the first vote, 
which will be the Collins vote, I would ask there be, by unanimous 
consent, 2 minutes equally divided, with 1 minute controlled by the 
Senator from California and 1 minute by the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and 
it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment from the Senator from Hawaii 
I know is well-intentioned, but we are working within a budget, and the 
purpose of our bill was to focus our energies on areas where we saw 
highest threat, and, yes, we did reduce the amount of first responder 
funds and take those monies and move them onto the effort to try to 
fight weapons of mass destruction and to put more people and more 
emphasis on protecting our borders. That is where the money is moved, 
but we kept $1.9 billion in the first responder funds, and that means 
that since 2003 there will have been $13 billion put into first 
responder funds.
  To try to put this into perspective, this money has been flowing so 
fast into these accounts that there remains, from 2004 and 2005 
appropriations, almost--or over--$7 billion of unspent money, I mean 
money that is in the pipeline that simply cannot be handled efficiently 
yet. So we are putting another $1.9 billion under this bill on top of 
that $7 billion. And we believe that that is reasonable, in light of 
the needs on the borders, to put more people on the borders. That is 
why we made this decision. The amendments of the Senator from Hawaii, 
although well-intentioned, are subject to a point of order, and we will 
make a point of order at the proper time.
  At this point, I yield to the Senator from North Dakota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.


                           Amendment No. 1111

  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1111 and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1111.

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

 (Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds appropriated under this Act to 
promulgate the regulations to implement the plan developed pursuant to 
        section 7209(b) of the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may 
     be used to promulgate regulations to implement the plan 
     developed pursuant to section 7209(b) of the 9/11 Commission 
     Implementation Act of 2004 (8 U.S.C. 1185 note) to require 
     United States citizens to present a passport or other 
     documents upon entry into the United States from Canada.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know the manager of the bill and the 
ranking member are asking for amendments to be offered and considered. 
I wanted to do that.
  Very quickly, this amendment deals with the issue of whether to 
require passports for everyone entering and leaving this country at our 
borders.
  We have a common border with the country of Canada, over 4,000 miles. 
In my State of North Dakota, we have people moving back and forth 
across the border all the time. We have people who farm on both sides 
of the border, people with families on both sides of the border. At the 
Pembina port of entry, we have 100,000 people a month crossing the 
border.
  To require a passport for that is, in my judgment, far too 
burdensome. A passport now costs a $55 fee, a $12 security surcharge, 
and a $30 execution charge--a total of $97 to obtain a passport.
  I believe very strongly we do need border security, no question about 
that. That is important. But I think, especially with respect to day 
travel and common tourist and business practices across, for example, 
the United States-Canadian border, with which I am familiar, to require 
a passport for moving across that border is enormously burdensome. I 
hope we will not do that.
  The President, when asked about it, spoke to the American Society of 
Newspaper Editors and said: When I first read that in the newspaper, 
about the need to have passports particularly for day crossing--he is 
talking about the border--I said, what's going on here? I thought there 
was a better way to expedite the whole flow of traffic and people.
  I think the President is right, and I know that since the President 
said that, the folks in Homeland Security have been reconsidering this 
issue, but I am very worried that they still may proceed with their 
regulations at some point, and I hope this Congress would weigh in on 
the question of whether we think everyone who moves back and forth 
across the Canadian border should have a passport. I don't believe the 
requirement for a passport is practical. I think it is overly 
burdensome. I believe that we ought to send that message to the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  I am not suggesting we don't care about security. We do. We care 
deeply about border security. But there must be other ways in which we 
can accomplish that task. And so my amendment will address that.
  I thank my colleague from New Hampshire for giving me the 
opportunity, just a few minutes, to at least get the amendment offered, 
to be talking about it, and have it considered.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes evenly divided before votes in respect to the 
Collins and Feinstein amendments.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1142

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, during the past 3 years, we have 
appropriated more than $8 billion in homeland security grants, despite 
the fact that this program has never been properly authorized. The 
Homeland Security Committee has spent the last 3 years working on an 
authorization bill. We have produced a carefully crafted, balanced bill 
that is incorporated in the Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  This debate is about establishing a formula that provides a 
predictable level of funding scaled to reflect the different needs of 
large and small States that will allow all States to achieve essential 
preparedness and prevention capabilities. We break the mold that 
provides a set baseline amount to each State regardless of size and 
needs. This debate is also about distributing more funds based on risk.
  Let's put this important issue in perspective. Compared to last year, 
our amendment would double the amount of funds distributed based on 
risk. Last year only 37 percent of funds appropriated for homeland 
security grants were allocated based on risk. Under our amendment, more 
than 70 percent of the funds would be distributed based on risk or 
factors used now by the Department of Homeland Security to determine 
risk. That is a lot of discretion that we are giving to the Secretary.
  I want to address the CRS memo solicited by Senator Lautenberg that 
was discussed this morning. It has been

[[Page S8130]]

used by our opponents to suggest that only 60 percent is distributed 
based on risk. In fact, it is more than 70 percent, as is the 
underlying bill. Tellingly, in a memorandum issued just today, CRS 
categorizes the sliding scale allocation as risk based.
  This is a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time of the Senator has 
expired. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Who has the time?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California has 
time remaining.
  Mr. REID. I yield back the time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1142 offered by the 
Senator from Maine.
  Mr. REID. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 71, nays 26, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 175 Leg.]

                                YEAS--71

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich
     Wyden

                                NAYS--26

     Allard
     Allen
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Clinton
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Martinez
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lott
     Mikulski
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 1142) was agreed to.


                    Amendment No. 1215, As Modified

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There is now scheduled to be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided, to be followed by a vote on the 
Feinstein amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, despite this vote, I wish to make a 
point. The administration has said in a letter dated today from 
Secretary Chertoff that their position is that 90 percent of homeland 
security funds should be distributed on the basis of risk. The 
Secretary goes on to say that they have 36 essential capabilities they 
need to carry out, and the way to do that is based on risk.
  Here are the numbers: In the underlying appropriations bill, 70 
percent is based on risk, $1.339 billion. Under Collins-Lieberman, less 
than 70 percent goes to risk. It is cut back to 60 percent, $1.155 
billion. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based 
on risk, or 87 percent. It is the closest number to the 
administration's letter dealing with this issue.
  I have a very hard time substituting pork for risk. I just was 
reading some of the intelligence. Let there be no doubt that not every 
State is equal in terms of target. We have set up a huge agency of 22 
departments. We have given them risk analysis. We have given them 
intelligence. We have broken down the wall between FBI and CIA. Why? 
Because there is a real threat, and money should be accorded based on 
that threat, not based on pork.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Maine is 
recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we all want more funding to be 
distributed on risk. The Collins-Lieberman amendment which was just 
adopted more than doubles the amount of money allocated based on risk. 
Risk is not a science. We are giving unprecedented authority to the 
Secretary of Homeland Security, that there is no precedent for in any 
grant program of this size.
  The fact is, under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, every State would 
lose at least $8 million in guaranteed funding. Some States would lose 
tens of millions of dollars. Even taking into account how funds have 
historically been distributed based on risk, 43 States lose money under 
the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment verses the Collins-Lieberman amendment. 
We have to recognize that every State has vulnerabilities and needs to 
be brought up to a baseline ability to prepare and prevent for 
terrorist attacks. The Collins-Lieberman amendment was endorsed by many 
law enforcement groups that do not support this approach.
  I urge opposition to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.
  Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the yeas and yeas.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1215, as modified. The 
clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McConnell. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Lott), and the Senator from South Dakota 
(Mr. Thune).
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Isakson). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 65, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Allard
     Allen
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Martinez
     McCain
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--65

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Lott
     Mikulski
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 1215), as modified, was rejected.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that under an 
agreement, the minority leader, Mr. Reid, may offer an amendment on 
behalf of Democratic Senators. I ask consent, on his behalf, to send 
two amendments to the desk, one on behalf of Senator Barbara Boxer and 
one from Senator Debbie Stabenow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1216

  Mr. DURBIN. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Mrs. Boxer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1216.
       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for Ms. Stabenow, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1217.

  The amendments are as follows:

[[Page S8131]]

                           AMENDMENT NO. 1216

     SEC.   . STRENGTHENING SECURITY AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) A taped interview shown on al-Jazeera television on 
     September 10, 2002, included a statement that al Qaeda 
     initially planned to include a nuclear power plant in its 
     2001 attacks on the United States.
       (2) In 2001, David Kyd of the International Atomic Energy 
     Agency said that if a fully fueled large jetliner hit a 
     nuclear reactor ``then the containment could be breached and 
     the cooling system of the reactor could be impaired to the 
     point where radioactivity might well be set free.''
       (3) Dr. Edwin Lyman, a physicist and former scientific 
     director of the Nuclear Control Institute has noted that if a 
     nuclear power plant were hit by a large commercial passenger 
     jet, ``significant release of radiation into the environment 
     is a very real one.''
       (4) Operating nuclear reactors contain large amounts of 
     radioactive fission products that, if dispersed, could pose a 
     direct radiation hazard, contaminate soil and vegetation, and 
     be ingested by humans and animals.
       (5) According to the organization Three Mile Island Alert, 
     a nuclear power plant houses more than 1,000 times the 
     radiation that would be released in an atomic bomb blast, and 
     the magnitude of a single terrorist attack on a nuclear power 
     plant could cause over 100,000 deaths.
       (6) The federal government has offered Governors potassium 
     iodide pills to distribute to people living near nuclear 
     power plants in case of an attack, but no legislation has 
     passed to protect against an attack in the first place.
       (7) In the 108th Congress, the Senate Environment and 
     Public Works Committee approved bipartisan legislation to 
     improve nuclear plant security. No action was taken by the 
     full Senate.
       (8) Last month, the Senate Environment and Public Works 
     Committee again approved bipartisan legislation to improve 
     nuclear plant security.
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that the Congress should pass legislation to assess terrorist 
     threats at each nuclear power plant and to establish new 
     federal standards to protect against those threats.


                           amendment no. 1217

(Purpose: To provide funding for interoperable communications equipment 
                                grants)

       On page 77, line 18, strike ``$2,694,300,000'' and insert 
     ``7,694,300,000''.
       On page 79, line 22, strike the colon and insert a period.
       On page 79, between lines 22 and 23, insert the following:
       (7) $5,000,000,000 for interoperable communications 
     equipment grants: Provided, That such amount is designated as 
     an emergency requirement pursuant to section 402 of H. Con. 
     Res. 95 (109th Congress):

                          ____________________