[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11275-S11279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--CONFERENCE 
                                 REPORT

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed 
to the immediate consideration of the conference report to accompany 
H.R. 2360, the Homeland Security appropriations bill. I further ask 
consent that there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided, and 
following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to a 
vote on adoption of the conference report, with no intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the 
     two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 
     2360) ``making appropriations for the Department of Homeland 
     Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and 
     for other purposes,'' having met, have agreed that the House 
     recede from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate, 
     and agree to the same with an amendment, and the Senate agree 
     to the same, signed by a majority of conferees on the part of 
     both Houses.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senate will proceed to

[[Page S11276]]

the consideration of the conference report.
  The Senate proceeded to consider the conference report.
  (The conference report is printed in the House proceedings of the 
Record of September 20, 2005.)
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, we 
expect this vote to be a voice vote. There will be no more rollcall 
votes today.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, in the Senate this year, we have considered 
this homeland security bill during two very different times of crisis. 
When the bill was on the floor of the Senate in July, the reprehensible 
train bombings in London had just occurred and there was a desire to 
increase funding for rail security. Now, we consider this conference 
report during the immediate aftershock of two damaging hurricanes in 
the gulf coast, which demolished entire cities and towns. And there has 
been a call and an urgency to provide Federal financial help. We have 
met that call through significant--very significant--supplemental 
emergency funds. While these funds need to be monitored to make sure 
they are spent wisely and prudently, it is appropriate to help get the 
people in these areas back on their feet. And it is important to 
remember that this is an emergency, and emergency needs are being 
addressed through tens of billions of dollars that have been approved.
  The conference report we are considering today addresses the 
Department of Homeland Security as a whole. It is an amalgamation of 22 
Federal agencies and it encompasses the broad spectrum of homeland 
security needs. But first and foremost, the Department must be focused 
on the national security of our country.
  The conference report before us builds on that. It is threat-based 
and provides total appropriations of $31.9 billion for the Department 
of Homeland Security, directly focusing on two of the most vulnerable 
areas of our homeland security: weapons of mass destruction and border 
security.
  As a country, we pride ourselves on being an open and democratic 
society that affords tremendous freedoms to its citizens. 
Unfortunately, there are terrorists who wish to prey on that trust and 
openness and to harm and kill massive numbers of innocent civilians to 
attack our way of life. There is absolutely no question that if a 
terrorist gets control of a weapon of mass destruction, be it 
biological, nuclear, or radiological, it will be used against us and 
against the fundamentals of Western civilization. This conference 
report provides over $2.4 billion for WMD and terrorism prevention and 
preparedness, including funds to assist State and local jurisdictions.
  Similarly, because we seek to participate in an open and vibrant 
world, our borders are incredibly porous and access into this country 
is easy. Regrettably, that openness is now a threat to us. We do not 
have a handle on who and what crosses into our country everyday. This 
conference report provides $9 billion, which funds 1,000 new border 
patrol agents, 250 new investigators, 460 new detention personnel, and 
the necessary infrastructure and training capacity to support a vast 
improvement in our border security.
  I want to particularly single out the coast guard for the outstanding 
job they have done in the gulf coast States. They exemplify a working 
agency--one that does its job without fanfare and complaint, and which 
produces tremendous results in the number of lives that were saved 
rescuing over 33,520 people--as many as they have over the past 8 
years--stranded by Hurricane Katrina. Their superior work day in and 
day out is well recognized. This conference report provides a total of 
$7.86 billion for the Coast Guard for fiscal year 2006.
  As clearly as we saw the top performance of the Coast Guard during 
Katrina, the problems in FEMA continue to be highlighted. And this 
Committee intends to conduct an in depth analysis of the Department and 
this agency. At this time, putting more money in this bill, on top of 
the $60 billion in emergency funds already provided and the funds that 
will soon be coming in the next supplemental, is not the solution.
  I continue to also be concerned about the vast amount of unspent 
funds in the Department, particularly the $6.2 billion in unspent funds 
for State and local grants. For that reason, this bill limits funding 
in those areas. As a part of the National Preparedness Goal, State and 
local jurisdictions are undertaking a review of their essential 
capabilities, to determine what has been accomplished with the funds 
provided so far. The results of this analysis will be used to inform 
future funding decisions.
  Interoperable communications remains a significant priority. One of 
the hurdles facing communities attempting to achieve this goal is that 
not all of the technical standards, known as Project 25, are finished. 
Some standards continue under development.
  Overall, this conference report represents a responsible and targeted 
approach to homeland security funding. Were we able to fully meet every 
need? No, given fiscal constraints, we focused our limited resources on 
eliminating the most serious and detrimental vulnerabilities of our 
homeland security. And we have made a significant accomplishment in 
beginning to address the major threats facing our national security as 
a whole. This conference report demonstrates our strong commitment to 
shoring up our national security, making the Department of Homeland 
Security a better agency with a more coordinated and cohesive approach, 
and ensuring we are focused on the emerging threats of today rather 
than on yesterday's problems.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time on the conference report?
  The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I thank Chairman Judd Gregg, the House Chairman Harold 
Rogers, Representatives Martin Sabo, Representative Dave Obey, and all 
of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on the Homeland 
Security appropriations conference report.
  I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front 
lines of Homeland Security. God bless them. I thank them. While I 
remain very concerned that we are not giving these men and women the 
tools they need to do their job, that in no way detracts from their 
commitment to serve the Nation.

  The conference agreement that is before the Senate sends a strong 
signal to the Department that it needs to move in a new direction. The 
Department needs to be nimble and responsive, not bureaucratic and 
slow. It needs to target limited resources on future threats, not 
simply the threats posed by the attacks of September 11.
  The conference agreement includes numerous improvements to the 
President's budget, particularly with regard to border security, air 
cargo security, improved screening of airline passengers for 
explosives, funds to hire firefighters, as well as funding to protect 
the all-hazards Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.
  The conference agreement builds on the bipartisan border security 
initiatives I offered along with the very able Senator, Mr. Craig, with 
Chairman Gregg's support to the 2005 emergency supplemental bill. 
Between the supplemental enacted in May and this bill, Congress will 
have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,500; Congress 
will have increased the number of immigration investigators, agents, 
and detention officers by over 750; and Congress will have increased 
the number of detention beds by at least 1,800.
  I commend all of the conferees and in particular the inimitable 
chairman, Judd Gregg, for that action. The inimitable chairman. Do you 
hear that? The inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg. He is not here, but he 
will hear about it.
  In addition, the agreement contains an important protection for the 
privacy rights of Americans. The agreement would prohibit the use of 
commercial databases in the implementation of Secure Flight, the 
Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system. Such 
commercial databases are unreliable and potentially could be used to 
invade people's privacy.
  The conference agreement provides $30.8 billion for discretionary 
programs, an increase of just 4.6 percent. This is a very lean bill. 
The committee was put into a difficult position as a result of the 
administration's proposal to

[[Page S11277]]

have the Appropriations Committee increase the fees paid by airline 
passengers by $1.68 billion. How about that?
  The Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction--what is the 
matter with the White House?--the Appropriations Committee does not 
have jurisdiction over airline fees. The White House knows that. The 
Budget Office knows that. So as a result of what the White House did, 
the committee was forced to reduce spending on critical homeland 
security programs--your programs, your people's programs, your 
constituents' programs.
  This ill-considered administration proposal--hear it--this ill-
considered White House proposal resulted in real cuts--real cuts--in 
firefighter grants, first responder grants, Coast Guard operations, and 
in the number of airport screeners.
  Now listen. Listen. It is regrettable that the administration's 
apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process--when will 
they learn?--their apparent lack of understanding of the legislative 
process will have such a direct impact on programs that are important 
elements of our homeland security strategy. How about that? Time and 
time again--time and time again--this administration has talked a good 
game on homeland security, but it has not followed through with a 
sustained commitment of resources and ideas. I fear that the 
administration believes that it fulfilled its commitment to securing 
the homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, which I 
voted against. And I am glad I voted against it. Well, America is not 
made safer by simply reorganizing boxes on an organizational chart.
  Repeatedly, the energy, the initiative, the resources, and the 
leadership for homeland security have come from the Congress--the 
Congress. From border security to transit, rail, and port security, to 
air cargo security and explosives detection, the initiative--hear me--
the initiative to fund these efforts came from--where?--the Congress, 
you, this body, the other body, the people's branch, the Congress. This 
conference agreement continues in that tradition, and I commend 
Chairman Gregg and former Chairman Cochran. I commend them for their 
excellent leadership.
  However, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Madrid and 
London train bombings, many other bombings such as those in Bali just a 
few days ago, and Hurricane Katrina, Congress should be approving a 
more robust homeland security bill. If there is one lesson we should 
all learn from Hurricane Katrina, it is that when you starve our 
Nation's infrastructure and allow our emergency response capacity to 
wither on the vine, there are consequences. There are consequences. 
There will be consequences.
  In conference, I joined with Representatives Obey and Sabo in 
offering an amendment to provide $1.7 billion of targeted investments 
for emergency disaster planning, predisaster mitigation, grants to 
hire, equip, and train firefighters, and grants for transit, port, and 
chemical security. The amendment would also have helped the Coast Guard 
maintain the ships, the planes, the helicopters that they have used so 
effectively in evacuating over 33,000 people following Hurricane 
Katrina and Hurricane Rita.
  The entire bill that is before us, the budget for the entire 
Department, is only $30.8 billion. Now, I understand the need to live 
within limits, but sometimes those limits simply do not correspond to 
the reality that confronts us. Why not limit somewhere else? Why not 
limit somewhere else? How much are we giving to Iraq? How many 
questions do we ask, then, when we give there? We build infrastructure 
in Iraq. How about building it here in our country? Charity begins at 
home.
  In the past month, we appropriated $60 billion as an emergency for 
one agency that is funded by this bill, FEMA. One agency received a 
supplemental that is double the annual budget of the entire Department, 
and yet in this bill we fail to make the investments to help us avoid 
future $60 billion supplemental bills.
  We should be increasing predisaster mitigation efforts. What if 
something happens here in Washington? What if something hits 
Washington? There will be millions of people from Washington, Virginia, 
and Maryland heading--where?--heading westward, heading toward West 
Virginia, heading toward parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. 
Then what? Yes, what about that? We have seen the problems created by 
Katrina. What if the terrorists were to hit here, and then we have this 
massive, massive flow of people Westward? That is what we are talking 
about when we talk about predisaster mitigation efforts.
  My Governor, the Governor of West Virginia, the most handsome 
Governor in the country, Governor Joe Manchin, has proposed that there 
be more money--more money, that we need to prepare ahead of time, that 
we need to pre-position medical supplies, pre-position gasoline, pre-
position other items that will be needed when and if that disaster hits 
here. That is what we should be increasing: predisaster mitigation 
efforts--not cutting them.
  We should be doing the disaster planning now so that if there is a 
terrorist attack in a major city such as Washington, DC, that produces 
a mass evacuation, there will be pre-positioned food, water, fuel, and 
communications equipment to help the millions of affected citizens 
evacuate safely.
  When less than 25 percent of eligible applications for firefighting 
grants were approved last year, should we be cutting firefighting funds 
by $105 million? Why, that is sheer madness--madness. That is sheer 
madness. May I say to one of my favorite Senators of all time, the 
Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords--one of my favorite Senators--that 
is sheer madness.
  When the Madrid and London train bombings proved that there is a real 
threat to our transit systems--hear me, New York City--when there is a 
real threat to our transit systems, should Congress be providing just 
$150 million, when the estimated need is $6 billion--$6 billion.
  When two Russian airplanes were simultaneously blown out of the sky 
by terrorists 1 year ago, should we be satisfied that only 18--only 
18--out of the 448 commercial airports in the United States have 
received new checkpoint technologies to screen passengers for 
explosives?
  Hear me. We better act in time.
  I believe Chairman Gregg--the inimitable chairman, I say; he is a 
Republican, but he is a great chairman; I am proud of him--has put 
together a bill that makes significant improvements to the President's 
budget. I commend Chairman Gregg for those choices. However, as we move 
forward on a Katrina supplemental bill, I hope we will reconsider the 
investments contained in the amendment that was defeated--hear me--
defeated in conference.
  Sometimes I say, yes, sometimes you have to spend money to save money 
and to save lives. Let me say that again. Sometimes--sometimes, 
Senators; sometimes, Mr. President; sometimes, I say to the White 
House--you have to spend money to save money and to save lives. And you 
do have to spend it here in America, in this country, to save American 
lives.
  I commend the staff--our wonderful staff, our great staff, our 
dedicated staff--for their contributions to this important legislation. 
In particular, I thank Chairman Gregg's staff: Rebecca Davies, James 
Hayes, Carol Cribbs, Kimberly Nelson, Shannon O'Keefe, and Avery 
Forbes.
  And do you think I would forget my own staff? No. My own staff, I 
commend them: Charles Kieffer--man, he is it, he is the man, Charles 
Kieffer--Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, and our Coast Guard 
detailee, Sean MacKenzie. What a staff.
  Finally, on a personal note, I mark the recent passing of Robert M. 
Sempsey this past Saturday. Bob Sempsey worked for the Congressional 
Budget Office for nearly 25 years. He was the principal analyst for the 
Homeland Security and Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills. He was 
a good friend. He was a fine teacher for many of our Senate staff. To 
his wife and three children, I extend my hand in your time of grief. 
Bob was a fine public servant. He will be sorely missed.
  With regard to the Homeland Security conference report, I again 
compliment the inimitable Chairman Judd Gregg.
  I urge its adoption, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, it is with regret that I oppose this 
conference report.
  I am a strong advocate of the need for the Department of Homeland 
Security and its work. And as the ranking

[[Page S11278]]

member of the Department's lead authorizing committee, I do not lightly 
oppose this appropriations bill for the Department's vital work. But I 
feel I have no choice but to protest what I consider to be dangerous 
and misguided cuts in the vital programs that help America's first 
responders.
  Just weeks ago, we watched with horror as our fellow citizens in 
Louisiana and Mississippi suffered the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. It 
was inevitable that a hurricane of that size and intensity would cause 
hardship. But we know that the pain was far greater and the recovery 
far more daunting than it needed to have been if our Government had 
done all it could to prepare for and respond to the catastrophe. We 
know that preparedness planning was inadequate; that first responders 
lacked the equipment and communications they needed to respond; and 
that first responders and officials did not have the training and 
command structures they needed to work effectively together to help the 
many victims depending on them. And this for a catastrophic hurricane 
that had been predicted in advance. We can only speculate what 
preparedness and response to an unforeseen catastrophic terror attack 
might look like.
  We know, in short, that we have very far to go before we are as ready 
as we must be for the threats ahead. So why are we now are asked to 
approve dramatic cuts in the very programs that could help strengthen 
these essential capabilities?
  This conference report would cut the three core first responder 
programs--the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, the Urban 
Area Security Initiative, UASI, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism 
Prevention Program, LETPP--by 28 percent--nearly a third. The State 
homeland grants, which make up the backbone of most prevention and 
preparedness efforts, would be cut in half from fiscal year 2005 
levels. And this comes on top of several years of cuts to these 
accounts. I know these cuts will leave unacceptable gaps in homeland 
security efforts in my own state of Connecticut, and I assume other 
States will also be unable to achieve their preparedness and response 
goals without more help from the Federal Government.
  By contrast, the Senate voted in support of S. 21, a bill sponsored 
by Senator Collins and me, to authorize a significant increase in 
funding for these core first responder programs. The Homeland Security 
and Governmental Affairs Committee has also endorsed legislation to 
create a new dedicated grant program to help first responders obtain 
interoperable communications equipment. This vital need--so painfully 
apparent on 9/11 and again during Katrina and its aftermath--alone is 
estimated to cost billions of dollars. Currently, first responders must 
purchase interoperable communications systems with these general 
homeland security grants, making the pending cuts all the more 
distressing.
  I recognize that appropriators struggled with constraints imposed by 
the administration's budget and had to make difficult choices between 
many important homeland security needs. I appreciate that conferees 
fought to include dedicated money for rail, transit and port security 
grants, as well as for the Coast Guard's Deepwater program. But I 
reject the premise that we must accept this as the best we can do for 
our first responders. It is not the best we can do. It must not be the 
best we can do. We know that the threats--natural or manmade--are real, 
and that we are not yet ready to meet them. Katrina has just 
underscored that lesson. Two years ago, a distinguished task force 
chaired by our former colleague Warren Rudman told us that our first 
responders were ``drastically underfunded, dangerously unprepared'' and 
that we would need close to $100 billion over 5 years to meet critical 
preparedness and response needs. Yet in the time since, we have only 
whittled away at these critical programs rather than strengthening 
them. As I have said before, we have the best military in the world 
because we are willing to pay for it. We should not do less for our 
defenses here at home.
  I wish to go on record opposing this conference report because I 
believe we must find a way to do more for our first responders and the 
communities they serve.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the fiscal 
year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations bill. I oppose this 
conference report for three main reasons. First, the funding levels for 
first responder grants has been slashed to the lowest levels in the 
post-9/11 era despite the evident need for resources. Second, the bill 
adopts a formula for the distribution of first responder grants that is 
unpredictable, lacking in basic fiscal safeguards and will leave many 
parts of this country vulnerable. Third, this conference report 
underfunds mass transit security.
  This conference report cuts the funding allocation for State and 
local first responder grants from $1.1 billion enacted in fiscal year 
2005 to only $550 million for fiscal year 2006, an unacceptable and 
unwise reduction. Moreover, the level contained in the conference 
report is a full $270 million less than the amount requested in the 
administration's budget request. Unfortunately, these reductions 
continue a downward trend. The overall amount of homeland security 
funding for first responders and state and local needs has declined by 
$1.2 billion in just the past 2 years.
  This is not the time to slash funding levels of these critical 
preparedness grants. These Draconian cuts are particularly remarkable 
given the recent failures in the response to Hurricane Katrina. That 
disaster clearly indicated that this Nation is not as prepared as it 
must be and that Federal, State, and local first responders and 
emergency managers are lacking critical equipment, especially 
communications gear and training resources. This is not the time to be 
cutting the resources available for these vital preparedness programs.
  The second reason I voted against the conference report was because 
it adopts a formula to distribute these funds that is unbalanced, 
unpredictable and lacks accountability measures that are needed to 
ensure funds are spent wisely. Indeed, this conference report 
underscores the need for the bill Senator Lieberman and I have 
developed, and the Senate overwhelmingly endorsed, to ensure a stable 
level of funding for all States. The approach taken in our bill would 
establish a formula that provides a predictable level of funding--
scaled to reflect the different needs of states--that will allow all 
States to achieve essential preparedness and prevention capabilities.
  We don't know where the next terrorist attack will take place. There 
is no way to predict where the next hurricane, tornado, or outbreak of 
pandemic influenza will occur. Therefore, we must raise the 
preparedness of all States to a minimum level of preparedness.
  Unfortunately, the approach taken by the conference report does not 
provide an adequate base level to help States and localities establish 
minimum levels of preparedness. Nor does it recognize, as our bill 
does, that some States, because of larger or more dense populations, 
need more funding than others to establish essential preparedness 
capabilities.
  Additionally, under the ad hoc approach taken in this conference 
report, States cannot count on a predictable stream of funding, which 
makes it impossible to implement the long-range plans the DHS requires 
of them. We need a fair formula, in statute, that does not jump from 
year to year as is currently the case.
  Additionally, accountability measures--like independent audits, 
robust reporting requirements, and tying spending to standards--are 
simply not in place. We need to adopt authorizing legislation to ensure 
this funding is being properly spent.
  It is disappointing that the appropriators largely adopted the House 
position on how to distribute this funding. This is particularly the 
case given that the bill Senator Lieberman and I put together received 
the support of more than 70 Senators just this past July.
  Finally, this conference report is flawed because it shortchanges 
vulnerable areas, in particular, transit security. The Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs recently held hearings on 
this important topic which revealed vulnerabilities in our transit 
systems. The attacks in Madrid and London demonstrate that terrorists 
are willing and able to attack transit systems; it is unconscionable 
that we are not doing more to secure our domestic transit systems.
  Our Nation must make more progress in improving its ability to 
respond to

[[Page S11279]]

catastrophic disasters, whether natural or from a terrorist attack. 
Congress owes it to our constituents and to our first responders to be 
more thoughtful in how we provide the resources necessary to improve 
our ability to deter, detect, and respond to threats facing our Nation.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today the Senate passed the Department of 
Homeland Security appropriations bill conference report. The bill 
provides $30.8 billion in discretionary spending for the Department of 
Homeland Security. While it is important that the Senate acted to pass 
this legislation, I am concerned about the funding levels provided for 
critical programs in this conference report. Specifically, the bill 
cuts funding for vital first-responders grants, and fails to improve 
our Nation's transit and aviation security.
  I fear that we have failed to learn from the terrorist attacks in 
Madrid and London about the vulnerability of our transit system. 
Yesterday's terrorist threat against the New York City transit system 
further illustrates the need to increase our efforts in this area. Yet 
the conference report that we passed today includes only $150 million 
for transit security grants. In June, Senators Shelby and Sarbanes and 
I sponsored an amendment to raise funding for transit security to more 
than $1 billion. Unfortunately, the amendment failed. But it is this 
level of funding, not $150 million, that is necessary to keep the 
Nation safe.
  Every workday, 14 million Americans take a train or a bus. We know 
that transit systems and their riders are by their very nature prime 
terrorist targets. Subways, light rail, buses, and ferries are designed 
for easy access and to move large numbers of people efficiently.
  These are the facts: Numerous attacks on transit; 6,000 transit 
systems in the U.S.; and 14 million riders every workday. I don't think 
anyone can say transit is not a target for terrorists and should not be 
among our highest homeland security priorities. Yet the Federal 
Government's response to these facts has been underwhelming. Indeed, 
the Federal Government has invested $9 in aviation security 
improvements per passenger, but only $0.006 in public transportation 
security per passenger. Now, are aviation and transit the same and can 
we achieve the same level of security in the open access environment of 
transit? No, but I doubt that the 14 million Americans who use transit 
every workday think that less than one cent is the appropriate amount 
to invest in transit security
  Second, I am concerned about the cuts that the bill provides to 
aviation screening. The bill would cut funding for the aviation 
security screener workforce by $125 million from the budget request. 
This cut will result in 2,000 fewer airport screeners nationwide, 
including cuts in the number of screeners in Rhode Island. Rather than 
cutting the number of screeners, we need to increase the nationwide 
number to 53,000 screeners in order to keep wait times at the current 
average of about 10 minutes. Yesterday, President Bush in an attempt to 
rally public support for the war in Iraq stated that the Government 
disrupted 10 serious terrorist plots since September 11, 2001. Three of 
these plots involved hijacking airplanes for suicide attacks. Yet, 
today, the Republican Congress cut the number of screeners serving our 
airports.
  Finally, the bill cuts funding for first-responder grants for States 
and local governments by about 17 percent, $680 billion less than last 
year, and failed to include a formula to help ensure all states would 
receive adequate funding and protection.
  This conference report does not do enough to protect Americans from 
terrorism threats or natural disasters. This is a continuation of the 
administration's, and the leadership of this Congress, pattern of 
failure to learn from past lessons and invest in the essential 
infrastructure necessary to make our country safe. Is this the type of 
belt-tightening the administration is willing to accept in order to 
continue to pay for irresponsible tax cuts?
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. I rise today to express my displeasure with 
the Homeland Security appropriations conference report. More 
specifically, the conferees' neglect of formula based funding for 
State's first responders could produce dire results for small rural 
States such as Arkansas.
  The conferees' decision to cut this funding, by more than half, will 
make it harder for smaller States to prevent, and more importantly, 
respond to emergency situations either manmade or natural. The events 
of the last 2 months alone go to show that first responders need to be 
prepared regardless of where they are located geographically.
  The conferees' decision to cut first responder funding is even more 
frustrating seeing that the U.S. Senate a few months ago overwhelmingly 
passed a Homeland Security appropriations bill that went to great 
lengths to maintain a minimum base of first responder funding for all 
States. The formula which was created by Senators Susan Collins and 
Joseph Lieberman was fair and would have provided stability to our 
Homeland Security appropriations process. I commend these Senators for 
their hard work and regret that their formula was ignored by conferees.
  The conferees' actions will not only do great disservice to small 
States' first responders this year, but they have guaranteed that we 
will yet again spend precious time next year working out a funding 
formula to allocate Homeland Security grant money. There are many other 
issues that we must tackle but an inability to reach an understanding 
on this important issue will keep us stuck in the mud and that, Mr. 
President, is a disservice to all States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does any other Member seek recognition?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I yield back time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded, the question is 
on agreeing to the conference report.
  The conference report was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.

                          ____________________