[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):
____________________