[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11287-S11289]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS CONFERENCE REPORT

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to discuss the fiscal 
year 2006 Homeland Security appropriations conference report. The 
Senate passed this measure earlier today by a voice vote. Frankly, I 
would have liked to have had a recorded vote on this measure. If a 
recorded vote had been ordered, I would have expressed my opposition to 
this conference report.
  Nevertheless, I would like to begin by recognizing that the authors 
of this conference report, Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd, do a 
tremendous job each year. I have served in the Senate long enough to 
know how hard it is to pull these types of appropriations bills 
together. I also acknowledge the chairman of the Appropriations 
Committee, Senator Cochran. It is no easy task to write and manage a 
bill that provides for our domestic security needs. I further commend 
all of our colleagues and their staffs on the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee for the hard work they have put into this 
legislation.
  However, I feel compelled, notwithstanding these efforts, to express 
my disappointment over the adoption of this conference report. I have 
very deep

[[Page S11288]]

concerns about how this measure funds our country's vital homeland 
security activities.
  In many crucial respects, I believe this conference report continues 
a pattern of failure on the part of the administration and the 
leadership of our Congress to address the acute and ongoing needs of 
our Nation's homeland security infrastructure.
  Allow me to read a letter I received 3 days ago from the Republican 
Governor of my State, a good friend and someone with whom I work all 
the time. I think it is important to hear--even after we adopted this 
measure--from a Governor of a State that is grappling with providing 
the necessary security to protect its citizens.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record at 
the conclusion of my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. DODD. The Governor says:

       . . . [I]n a time when the threat of terrorism remains 
     elevated and natural disasters such as the recent hurricanes 
     have reminded us all of the staggering power of nature, [the 
     cuts in this bill] simply [defy] rational explanation.
       The conference report inexplicably contains cuts that 
     exceed those in the original House or Senate bills or the 
     President's proposed budget. Funding for the State Homeland 
     Security Grant program is halved, from $1.1 billion to $550 
     million, while funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative 
     is reduced from $885 million to $765 million. Those programs, 
     along with the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, 
     have accounted for the bulk of [homeland security] funding 
     that our state has received.
       Of the money available for the State Homeland Security 
     Grant program, states will receive a mere 0.75 percent in 
     guaranteed funding. The balance is to be distributed by the 
     Department of Homeland Security based on risk, though how--or 
     when--that assessment is to be made is not clear.
       Under the conference report, guaranteed funding for 
     Connecticut in fiscal year 2006 would amount to barely $7.13 
     million. This is down by two-thirds from the $21 million in 
     fiscal year 2005--itself a reduction from the $46 million in 
     2004.

  My Governor concludes her letter by saying:

       The funding contained within the conference report is 
     utterly insufficient to support the actions needed to protect 
     the people of our State, to say nothing of the millions of 
     travelers and tons of truck, train and barge cargo that pass 
     through Connecticut every year.

  In an age when terrorism continues to be a threat to our country, one 
would think that the Congress of the United States would be doing 
everything it could to shore up our domestic security, to make it as 
impregnable as possible against those who would do us harm. Yet when we 
look at this conference report, I do not believe it does enough to 
protect our people from terrorism. We are simply not investing in the 
resources required to make this Nation as safe as possible.
  Instead of filling in the cracks that continue to exist within our 
homeland security foundation, we are letting those cracks grow.
  I was particularly disturbed to see that the FIRE and SAFER grant 
programs--vital firefighting assistance initiatives that I was pleased 
to author with Senators DeWine, Warner, and Levin--was cut by $60 
million over fiscal year 2005 levels. As the Governor of my State says, 
funding cuts of this nature defy rationality when one considers the 
devastation recently wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the 
unprecedented burdens placed on emergency first responders who are on 
the domestic frontlines in the fight against terrorism.
  For the past 3 years, I have come to the floor and offered 
legislation that would implement the recommendations made by the Rudman 
Commission.
  As we all know, our former colleague Warren Rudman, a former 
Republican Senator from New Hampshire, chaired a blue ribbon commission 
sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations that included George 
Schultz, William Webster, Harold Varmus and other distinguished 
Americans.
  The Rudman Commission concluded that our country's homeland security 
infrastructure was ``drastically underfunded'' and that our Nation was 
``dangerously unprepared'' to respond effectively to a terrorist 
attack.
  The Commission recommended that our Nation invest no less than $20 
billion a year for 5 years to take the minimum steps necessary to 
protect all Americans from natural and manmade threats. Regrettably, 
this conference report neglected to implement the recommendations of 
the Rudman Commission, providing only $3.4 billion of the $20 billion 
that the Commission identified as essential each and every year for 5 
years.
  I would point out that in the last 3 years I have offered an 
amendment on the Rudman Commission report, it has been regrettably 
defeated.
  In March of 2004, we watched the train system in Madrid, Spain, 
attacked by terrorists with nearly 200 dead. Earlier this year, we 
watched the London Underground and the double-decker buses attacked by 
terrorists, with dozens who were killed. Yesterday, the New York City 
subway system was placed on high alert. Yet in response to this clear 
and present danger to our Nation's largest transit system, the 
administration today and the leadership of both the House and the 
Senate have, in effect, cut funding for transit security in this bill, 
providing funding levels that do not keep pace with expected inflation.
  There is an added irony to all of this. At a time when we are dealing 
with record high gas prices and the administration is encouraging 
Americans to conserve energy by taking public transportation when and 
where they can, it is actually doing less than it did last year to 
ensure that our public transit systems are as safe as possible.
  What more is it going to take before the administration and the 
leadership of this body realize that we are not investing nearly enough 
in our homeland security infrastructure and our emergency first 
responders?
  When it comes to meeting the security needs of our country, this 
administration and leadership in Congress are pursuing a policy that, 
at best, in my view, can be called benign neglect. That has become 
painfully apparent in light of the inadequate response to meeting the 
needs and mitigating the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people 
along the Gulf Coast. And it has been reinforced by this conference 
report's failure to make essential investments to keep all Americans 
safe from the risk of terrorism.

                               Exhibit 1

                                             State of Connecticut,


                                           Executive Chambers,

                                    Hartford, CT, October 4, 2005.
       Hon. Christopher J. Dodd, Joseph I. Lieberman, John B. 
     Larson, Robert R. Simmons, Rosa DeLauro, Christopher Shays, 
     Nancy L. Johnson
       Dear Connecticut Congressional Delegation: I have reviewed 
     the Conference Report on H.R. 2360, the Department of 
     Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2006, and I am deeply 
     disturbed by the woefully inadequate funding the bill would 
     provide to Connecticut.
       Under the Conference Report, guaranteed funding for 
     Connecticut in Fiscal Year 2006 would amount to barely $7.13 
     million. This is down by two-thirds from some $21 million in 
     FY2005--itself a reduction from nearly $46 million in FY2004.
       This is incredibly unfair to Connecticut and, in a time 
     when the threat of terrorism remains elevated and natural 
     disasters such as the recent hurricanes have reminded us all 
     of the staggering power of nature, simply defies rational 
     explanation.
       The threats have not abated. Nature has not gone away. The 
     need for equitable and sensible funding has not ended.
       The Conference Report inexplicably contains cuts that 
     exceed those in the original House or Senate bills or the 
     President's proposed budget. Funding for the State 
     Homeland Security Grant (SHSG) program is halved, from 
     $1.1 billion to $550 million, while funding for the Urban 
     Areas Security Initiative (UASI) was reduced from $885 
     million to $765 million. Those programs, along with the 
     Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), have 
     accounted for the bulk of funding our state has received.
       Of the money available for the SHSG program, states will 
     receive a mere 0.75 percent in guaranteed funding. The 
     balance is to be distributed by the Department of Homeland 
     Security based on risk, though how--or when--that assessment 
     is to be made is not clear.
       In essence, the Conference Report reduces the vast majority 
     of homeland security funding to a lobbying contest. States 
     that are most successful in making their case before the 
     Department of Homeland Security will get the bulk of the 
     funding. Those that are not--will not.
       This is unfortunate, to say the least. In previous years, 
     after guaranteed SHSG and LETPP funding was distributed the 
     remainder was apportioned on the basis of population. None of 
     the UASI funding is guaranteed to states, and you will recall 
     that despite the obvious need--the FY2004 grant for New Haven 
     Harbor was not renewed in FY2005.
       On September 11, 2001, America was awakened to the need for 
     vigilance against security threats as well as natural 
     disasters.

[[Page S11289]]

     Connecticut, as you know, contains a number of major 
     highways, a nuclear power facility, ports that are home to a 
     regional depot for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
     shipyards, cargo operations and passenger and auto ferries.
       The funding contained within the Conference Report is 
     utterly insufficient to support the actions needed to protect 
     the people of our state, to say nothing of the millions of 
     travelers and tons of truck, train and barge cargo that pass 
     through Connecticut every year.
       I am urging you to seek an increase in the funding for 
     Connecticut. We cannot sustain a two-thirds reduction in 
     federal homeland security funding. It is unfair and unwise.
       I will be contacting you shortly to discuss this matter 
     further.
           Sincerely,
                                                     M. Jodi Rell,
     Governor.

                          ____________________