[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 37 (Monday, March 5, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2573-S2586]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 4, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4) to make the United States more secure by 
     implementing unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 
     Commission to fight the war on terror more effectively, to 
     improve homeland security, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid amendment No. 275, in the nature of a substitute.
       Sununu amendment No. 291 (to amendment No. 275), to ensure 
     that the emergency communications and interoperability 
     communications grant program does not exclude Internet 
     Protocol-based interoperable solutions.
       Salazar-Lieberman modified amendment No. 290 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to require a quadrennial homeland security review.
       DeMint amendment No. 314 (to amendment No. 275), to strike 
     the provision that revises the personnel management practices 
     of the Transportation Security Administration.
       Lieberman amendment No. 315 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     provide appeal rights and employee engagement mechanisms for 
     passenger and property screeners.
       McCaskill amendment No. 316 (to amendment No. 315), to 
     provide appeal rights and employee engagement mechanisms for 
     passenger and property screeners.
       Dorgan-Conrad amendment No. 313 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     require a report to Congress on the hunt for Osama bin Laden, 
     Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the leadership of al Qaida.
       Landrieu amendment No. 321 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     require the Secretary of Homeland Security to include levees 
     in the list of critical infrastructure sectors.
       Landrieu amendment No. 296 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     permit the cancellation of certain loans under the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.
       Landrieu amendment No. 295 (to amendment No. 275), to 
     provide adequate funding for local governments harmed by 
     Hurricane Katrina of 2005 or Hurricane Rita of 2005.
       Allard amendment No. 272 (to amendment No. 275), to prevent 
     the fraudulent use of Social Security account numbers by 
     allowing the sharing of Social Security data among agencies 
     of the United States for identity theft prevention and 
     immigration enforcement purposes.
       McConnell (for Sessions) amendment No. 305 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to clarify the voluntary inherent authority of 
     States to assist in the enforcement of the immigration laws 
     of the United States and to require the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security to provide information related to aliens found to 
     have violated certain immigration laws to the National Crime 
     Information Center.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 310 (to amendment No. 
     275), to strengthen the Federal Government's ability to 
     detain dangerous criminal aliens, including murderers, 
     rapists, and child molesters, until they can be removed from 
     the United States.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 311 (to amendment No. 
     275), to provide for immigration injunction reform.
       McConnell (for Cornyn) amendment No. 312 (to amendment No. 
     275), to prohibit the recruitment of persons to participate 
     in terrorism.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 317 (to amendment No. 
     275), to prohibit the rewarding of suicide bombings and allow 
     adequate punishments for terrorist murders, kidnappings, and 
     sexual assaults.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 318 (to amendment No. 
     275), to protect classified information.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 319 (to amendment No. 
     275), to provide for relief from (a)(3)(B) immigration bars 
     from the Hmong and other groups who do not pose a threat to 
     the United States, to designate the Taliban as a terrorist 
     organization for immigration purposes.
       McConnell (for Kyl) amendment No. 320 (to amendment No. 
     275), to improve the Classified Information Procedures Act.
       McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 300 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to clarify the revocation of an alien's visa or 
     other documentation is not subject to judicial review.
       McConnell (for Grassley) amendment No. 309 (to amendment 
     No. 275), to improve the prohibitions on money laundering.
       Thune amendment No. 308 (to amendment No. 275), to expand 
     and improve the Proliferation Security Initiative while 
     protecting the national security interests of the United 
     States.
       Cardin amendment No. 326 (to amendment No. 275), to provide 
     for a study of modification of area of jurisdiction of Office 
     of National Capital Region Coordination.
       Cardin amendment No. 327 (to amendment No. 275), to reform 
     mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region.
       Cardin amendment No. 328 (to amendment No. 275), to require 
     Amtrak contracts and leases involving the State of Maryland 
     to be governed by the laws of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we return now to S. 4, Improving 
America's Security Act. This is the legislation that emerged from the 
Homeland Security Committee in response to the appeals of the members 
of the 9/11 Commission, and others, to finish the job we began with the 
previous 9/11 legislation we adopted. We made some progress last week 
in the first two days of consideration of the bill. We will have a vote 
sometime tomorrow on the motion to strike the provision of the bill 
that would give equal rights to transportation security officers at the 
TSA. We will begin debate sometime this afternoon on alternative 
proposals to those presented in S. 4 for distributing homeland security 
grant funds. We have important matters to debate and vote on in the 
next few days.
  I know Senator Reid and, I hope, Senator McConnell want to finish 
this bill--that is, to bring it to passage--by the end of this week. I 
remind colleagues that S. 4 was reported out of the Homeland Security 
Committee on a strong nonpartisan vote, 16 to 0, with one member 
abstaining.
  I thought, as we return to the consideration of S. 4, I might go back 
to a hearing our committee held on January 9 to consider this 
legislation, particularly to draw from the testimony of three of the 
witnesses before the committee that day, three women who lost loved 
ones on September 11, 2001. This is a way, before we get into the 
details of the bill, to remind ourselves why this legislation is before 
us and what it is all about. Those three women who testified before our 
committee on that day, shortly after the 110th session of Congress 
convened, were Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley, and Carie Lemack.
  These three women, as many Members know because we have come to know 
them, have worked tirelessly in the last five and a half years to take 
their grief, their loss, and bring it into the public square, to the 
Congress, to the place where laws are made, to do everything in their 
power to ensure that the tragic losses they suffered on that day would 
not have to be suffered by any other American in the future.
  Their work produced the 9/11 Commission itself. It was a tough battle 
to actually create the 9/11 Commission. People were defensive. They 
didn't want it to be done by an independent commission. They wondered 
why it was necessary. But with the help of these women, we won that 
battle. Then when the Commission reported in 2004, we worked very hard 
with their help to adopt most of the recommendations of the Commission 
by the end of that year. This included the creation of the Director of 
National Intelligence to coordinate all of our intelligence, so we can 
now connect the dots to stop a terrorist act before it occurs; and the 
National Counterterrorism Center, which is now up and running and doing 
the same.
  The statements of Mary Fetchet, Carol Ashley, and Carie Lemack at our 
Committee's hearing explain the importance of the legislation, S. 4, 
that is now before the Senate, and particularly the responsibility we 
in Congress have to continue the unfinished work of implementing the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and of fixing the inadequate 
implementation of some of those recommendations or other gaps we have 
discovered since in our homeland security.
  I want to talk about these three brave, patriotic women one by one, 
describe briefly who they are, and then quote from their testimony.
  Mary Fetchet lost her son Brad, age 24, in Tower 2 of the World Trade 
Center on September 11. She is the founding director of the group 
called Voices of September 11th. At our hearing on January 9, Mary 
testified as follows:

       I have made a personal commitment to advocate for the full 
     implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations driven 
     by the ``wake-up'' call when my son was senselessly murdered 
     by terrorists on 9/11. It is my personal belief that almost 
     six years later our country remains vulnerable, and although 
     some progress has been made, much work remains ahead. We 
     collectively--the administration, Congress, government 
     agencies and interested individuals--have a

[[Page S2574]]

     moral obligation and responsibility to work together to 
     ensure our government is taking the necessary steps to make 
     our country safer.

  ``A moral obligation and responsibility,'' as we debate the details 
of this legislation and consider the parliamentary tactics related to 
it this week on the floor of the Senate, that is, after all, what binds 
all of us together, certainly across party lines, in this body and 
around America--``a moral obligation and responsibility.'' Those were 
the words of Mary Fetchet.
  Carol Ashley lost her daughter Janice, age 25, in Tower 1 of the 
World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Carol has served on the 
Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission, which 
worked to help pass the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention 
Act of 2004. At our January committee hearing, Carol Ashley also 
discussed the importance of the legislation the Senate is considering 
today. I quote again:

       Along with other members of the Family Steering Committee, 
     I worked for passage of intelligence reform legislation in 
     2004 based on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Our 
     goal was to make our nation as secure as possible to reduce 
     the chances that any other American families would lose a 
     loved one to terrorism. Unfortunately, that bill did not 
     fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Some 
     that were included were not as strong as they should have 
     been. The result is that more than five years after 9/11, 
     there are still gaps in our security.

  I continue to quote from Carol Ashley, mother of Janice, age 25, who 
was killed by the terrorists on 9/11 in the World Trade Center:

       Tightening our security and upgrading preparedness is 
     urgent. Although five years have passed with no terrorist 
     attack on our soil, there is no way to know when, where or 
     how the terrorists will strike again. To fulfill its foremost 
     obligation to protect the American people, Congress must 
     ensure through legislation and oversight that comprehensive 
     security safeguards are in place; and if the terrorists 
     succeed in breaching our security, that our federal, state 
     and local agencies are fully trained, equipped and prepared 
     to respond cohesively.

  What we do here today is ``urgent,'' to use Carol's word. In the last 
week, there have been reports that al-Qaida and the Taliban are gaining 
strength in the lawless regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan, 
establishing training bases once again, planning to attack the United 
States again. We know we face growing threats from citizens living in 
countries that are our allies, as we saw last August when British 
officials disrupted a plot to blow up airliners on their way from the 
United Kingdom to the United States.
  For these reasons and others, our task today is, in Carol Ashley's 
word, ``urgent.'' I hope we can--I am confident we will--overcome 
whatever divides us and work together to pass this legislation that 
will fulfill the powerful and relevant mandate of the 9/11 Commission.
  Finally, of these three women whose voices we should hear as we go 
through this debate this week, Carie Lemack's mother, Judy Larocque, 
was a passenger on American Airlines Flight 11 on September 11, 2001, 
which crashed into the World Trade Center. Like Mary and Carol, Carie 
has worked tirelessly in support of efforts to improve America's 
ability to prevent and respond to acts of terrorism. She is a cofounder 
of the group known as Families of September 11. At our hearing in 
January, Carie also discussed the importance of fully implementing the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report. I now quote from Carie 
Lemack at our hearing:

       The 9/11 Commission made 41 recommendations. Roughly half 
     of these recommendations have already been implemented, 
     thanks in no small part to the efforts of this committee. The 
     fall of 2004 was an extraordinary time. Many of us were 
     inspired by your willingness to spend weeks and months making 
     sure the Commission's recommendations did not fall on deaf 
     ears. The passage of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and 
     Terrorism Prevention Act was an historic moment, of which we 
     can all be proud.
       So much to be proud of, and yet so much more to do. More 
     than five years after 9/11, the terrorist threat has 
     inevitably grown a little more distant. Some experts are now 
     telling us that it isn't as serious as we had thought. If al 
     Qaeda is such a threat, why haven't we been attacked again? 
     To answer that question, just ask the people of London, or 
     Madrid, or Bali, or the other places where the terrorists 
     have struck since 9/11.
  Then Carie Lemack said to our committee:

       The United States has not been attacked again. But we will 
     be.
       Thanks to the work of so many dedicated public servants we 
     are safer than we were. But in the words of 9/11 Commission 
     Chairman Thomas Kean, we are still not as safe as we need to 
     be.

  Carie said:

       On the morning of September 11, 2001, my mother, Judy 
     Larocque, left home to go on a business trip. She woke up 
     early that day, at 5:30 a.m., in order to make her 8 o'clock 
     flight to the West Coast. Oddly enough, even though I am not 
     a morning person, I was up even before her that day, serving 
     as a coxswain for the MIT graduate school crew team. As I 
     glided on the Charles River that morning, I realized I could 
     have called Mom before my 6 a.m. practice, just for a kick, 
     since it was not often we were both up so early. But I 
     didn't, thinking she might be running late (a trait she 
     passed down to me and my sister) and knowing it would be 
     easier to talk later in the day, once her cross-country 
     flight landed.
       I never did get to talk to Mom that morning, though I left 
     many messages on her cell phone. To this day, I still find 
     myself looking at my caller ID whenever the phone rings, 
     waiting for it to say ``Mom's cell,'' waiting for the call 
     from her that I never got that gorgeous fall morning.
       I often think about what I would tell Mom if she called. I 
     dream about it all the time. She was founder and CEO of a 
     company, so I sometimes think I might tell her about founding 
     the non-profit organization Families of September 11, which 
     represents more than 2,500 individuals who chose to join our 
     group and support the terrorism prevention work we do. I 
     might tell her about the opportunities I have had in the past 
     five years that she could never have predicted, like 
     testifying before this esteemed committee today.
       But the most important thing I could possibly tell her is 
     that I love her, and that I am doing everything in my power 
     to make sure what happened to her never happens again. That 
     would come as no surprise to Mom. She brought my sister and 
     me up to fix wrongs and make them rights.

  Carie Lemack concluded, before our committee:

       Today I am asking you to fix a small number of important 
     wrongs, and make them right. Some of the important 
     recommendations of the 9/11 Commission report have still not 
     been implemented. I raise them not in the spirit of placing 
     blame or making accusations, but rather in the hope that 
     together we can own up to gaps, failures and mistakes in the 
     past, so that we are not condemned to repeat them in the 
     future.

  End of a very deeply personal, compelling quote. It moved everybody 
in the room that day, as it moves me to read those words on the floor 
here today.
  So much more to do, my colleagues. As Carie Lemack said, ``so much 
more to do.'' That is why we are here: to work together, and continue 
to improve upon the critical tasks that we have left undone and 
unfinished. That is our responsibility to Mary, Carol, Carie, and the 
tens of thousands of other Americans and citizens of nearly every 
nation on this globe who lost loved ones on September 11. We must work 
hard and never grow complacent as we face these challenges, in the same 
way that the generations who fought in World War II and the Cold War 
never grew complacent in the face of the threats to their freedom as 
Americans from fascism and communism.
  That is what we are debating today. That is the significance of S. 4, 
the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. That is why I thank my 
colleagues for their attention, for their dedication to getting this 
right, and for the debates and votes we will conduct in the days ahead, 
leading, I am confident, by the end of this week, to the passage of 
this critically important legislation.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. 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. 335 to Amendment No. 275

       (Purpose: To improve the allocation of grants through the 
     Department of Homeland Security, and for other purposes)

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 335, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. FEINSTEIN] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 335.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')

[[Page S2575]]

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment 
which ensures that critical homeland security resources are allocated 
predominantly on the basis of risk, threat, and vulnerability. I am 
pleased to be joined by my colleague from Texas, Senator John Cornyn, 
as well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, 
Obama, Menendez, Kerry, Coburn, and Casey. I understand that Senator 
Coburn and at least three of the other cosponsors will be coming to the 
floor, and I certainly welcome them. Our amendment provides an 
alternative that is consistent with the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission.
  Let me refresh the Members' view of the 9/11 Commission. This is the 
recommendation:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly--

  Strictly is underlined--

       on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

  And:

       Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a 
     program for general revenue sharing.

  Now, I know that is difficult for smaller States, but I also know 
this is a bill that is aimed to comply with the recommendations of this 
Commission. So I hope it will be given some attention.
  The amendment we are offering today would allocate homeland security 
grant funds based on risk and threat analysis. This covers most grants 
for interoperable communications, seaport and airport security, as well 
as the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement 
Terrorist Prevention Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative, and 
the Citizen Corps Program. We accomplish this by reducing the State 
minimum formula. Currently, each State receives .75 percent of the 
State terrorism preparedness grant money appropriated to the Department 
of Homeland Security. Now, what does this mean? This means that nearly 
40 percent of the grant funds must be allocated regardless of risk 
analysis. This amendment will reduce that State minimum to .25 percent; 
in other words, from .75 to .25. Lowering this minimum ensures that 
only 12.5 percent of the grant funds are set aside for all States, 
regardless. Even if they have no threat, they can get that amount of 
money.
  Also, 87.5 percent would be allocated based purely on risk and threat 
assessment. This would give the Department of Homeland Security the 
flexibility necessary to put money where it is most needed. This means 
that more dollars will go to the places that face serious threats and 
where dollars can do the most good and, as I say, it is consistent with 
the 9/11 Commission.
  So what does that mean in real dollar terms? Last year roughly $912 
million in grant funds were distributed to homeland security-related 
planning, equipment, training, and law enforcement support needs 
related to terrorism prevention. It broke down like this: Only 60 
percent of the money, or $547 million, was allocated based on risk. 
Forty percent, or $365 million, went to satisfy the guaranteed minimum 
for all States--exactly what the 9/11 Commission said we should not do.
  If the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment were in place, an additional $426 
million would have been distributed strictly on risk, threat, and 
vulnerability. That would have brought the total to $791 million--
nearly 90 percent of the funds. I believe this would have been the 
right thing to do. Instead, the places where the most funding is 
required are being shortchanged. Let me give my colleagues an example.
  Last year the breakdown of funds distributed through the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorist 
Prevention Program meant that some States with relatively low risk were 
receiving more funds per person than States with higher risk. We have 
all heard this. Now my State, California's share of this grant funding 
amounted to $2.50 per person. Texas, another large State, received 
$2.25 per person. Yet Wyoming received $14.75 per person. California is 
the most populous State in the Union. We have about 37 million 
residents. We have the Nation's largest ports, iconic bridges, towering 
skyscrapers, enormous infrastructure, and the busiest border crossing 
in the world. Texas, with 23.5 million residents, has great cities, 
towering skyscrapers, vital industries, and a vast international 
border. Wyoming--I don't want to pick on Wyoming. Love it. But as a 
State it is like a national park. Wyoming, with 515,000 residents, is a 
largely rural State.
  As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I pay close attention to 
the classified intelligence on terrorist threats. Regrettably, for 
those living in States with higher threat profiles, there is reason for 
concern. Major cities such as Los Angeles have been an elusive al-Qaida 
target for years. A public example outlining the severity of this post-
9/11 threat was acknowledged by President Bush in his State of the 
Union Address earlier this year. The President said:

       We stopped an al-Qaida plot to fly a hijacked airplane into 
     the tallest building on the West Coast.

  This is the tallest building on the west coast. It is the Library 
Tower Building--it has a new name now--the old Library Tower Building 
in Los Angeles, the tallest office building west of the Mississippi. It 
is home to more than 3,000 people during a typical workday.
  Al-Qaida and its allies do not attack based on an obscure formula to 
spend money evenly. They attack by prominence, number of people they 
can kill, and the psychological value of taking out America's great 
landmarks. Homeland security money must correlate with this threat and 
risk; otherwise, it is quite simply wasted. This is the reality of the 
world in which we live. We can never predict when or where the next 
major attack may occur, but we can apply tough-minded discipline to use 
our finite financial resources effectively.
  Allocating our critical resources effectively is built on a three-
pronged approach: One, risks of potential terrorist attacks must be 
accurately assessed; two, the vulnerability of critical infrastructure 
and potential targets must be measured; and, three, resources must be 
distributed based on these assessments.
  The Department of Homeland Security was created to accomplish these 
goals. This amendment provides the flexibility and resources for the 
professionals to do so.
  Let me make no secret. I would prefer to allocate 100 percent of 
homeland security grants based on risk and threat and believe that 
eliminating mandatory outlays to States is good public policy. It is 
safe public policy. But I understand the realities of the Senate. So 
this amendment is a compromise which makes us all safer and benefits in 
some way all 50 States.
  There are some who say that small States would be put at a 
disadvantage by this amendment. This is simply not true. Thirty-five 
States--70 percent of the Nation--would actually receive increased 
grant money for terrorism preparedness under this amendment. States as 
diverse as Connecticut, South Carolina, and Colorado will benefit. 
Risk-based funding will bring more Federal dollars to smaller States 
with high-threat profiles.
  Here are 35 States that benefit from risk-based appropriations, and 
you can see them on the chart. They are in the green: California, 
Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, North Dakota, Nebraska, 
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Missouri, Louisiana, Wisconsin, 
Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, 
South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland.
  This bill does not impact the primary all-hazards grant programs, 
such as the emergency management performance grants and the Assistance 
to Firefighters Program. In fact, under current law, nearly 40 percent 
of these funds are set aside for small State all-hazards preparedness. 
This adds up to at least $7 million per State based upon the 
authorization for emergency management performance grants in the 
underlying bill.
  There are those who will also make the argument that recipients of 
homeland security grant funds are not held accountable, as money is 
often wasted. Our amendment increases the efficiency of Federal dollars 
by ensuring that these critical funds actually go toward programs and 
efforts that prevent

[[Page S2576]]

acts of terror. It requires entities receiving these funds to undergo 
periodic audits conducted by the Department, and it mandates that the 
appropriate performance standards are met.
  Finally, the amendment ensures that States quickly distribute Federal 
dollars to localities where they are needed and not hold them back. 
Four years ago, the President signed Homeland Security Presidential 
Directive 8, requiring the Department of Homeland Security to allocate 
grant money ``based on national priorities.'' Four years later, despite 
this Presidential directive, this remains unmet, an elusive target.
  The 9/11 Commission report makes clear that there are imbalances. It 
offers sensible advice. We should take that advice. In our amendment, 
we have tried to do that. Among the Commission's observations and 
conclusions, ``Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on 
assessment of risk and vulnerability and, finally, Congress should not 
use this money as pork barrel.'' I could not agree more. In a free-for-
all over money, it is understandable that Representatives will work to 
protect the interests of their home States or districts. But this issue 
is too important, they say, for ``politics as usual'' to prevail.
  Well, I think the 9/11 Commission got it right. The national 
interests must trump geographical interests when it comes to national 
security. I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their dedication 
and leadership. I am encouraged that their approach has been modified. 
I clearly would like to modify it more. That is what this amendment is 
all about. They have acknowledged that funds should be allocated more 
along the lines of risk and threat.
  Nevertheless, their proposal to set aside 25 percent of funds for all 
States, I believe, in the world we live in, with the intelligence that 
crosses my desk, indicates it is too high an amount.
  This amendment offers a reasonable alternative that takes a 
significant step toward improving our Nation's homeland security. So I 
thank my cosponsors. I see that one is on the floor. I would like to 
yield, if I may, to the Senator from Texas, Senator Kay Bailey 
Hutchison.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the leadership of 
the Senator from California. We have talked about this many times, ever 
since 9/11, the Department of Homeland Security being created by 
Congress and requested by the President. But the fact is, I think the 
distinguished Senator from California has laid out the case very well. 
We have certain areas that, with our intelligence and with the 
activities that have been uncovered, we know are high-risk areas.
  It is in the interest of all Americans, of every State, that we allow 
the Department of Homeland Security, with its intelligence grid, to 
determine where the needs are greatest from a risk perspective. That is 
exactly what the Feinstein amendment does. I am very pleased to be a 
cosponsor with my colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn; Senator 
Feinstein; Senator Boxer. Many States that have the problems that we 
see are understanding of the need for this amendment.
  I will give you one example. Texas is, as Senator Feinstein said, the 
second largest State in population, the second largest State in area as 
well. We are second behind Alaska in area and second behind California 
in population. But more important than that is we have many areas that 
could be terrorist targets. In particular, I point out the ports, and 
the Port of Houston especially. Texas has 29 ports. Four of these are 
among the 10 busiest in the Nation. The Port of Houston is one of the 
most important ports in the world. It ranks first in the United States 
in foreign waterborne tonnage, second in total tonnage. It is the sixth 
largest in the world. It is also home to one of the biggest 
petrochemical complexes in the world. It is also part of our Nation's 
U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the world's largest oil stockpile.
  Due to the volume of hazardous materials, a terrorist attack in the 
Port of Houston would be an enormous disaster. An attack in the Port of 
Houston could disrupt our Nation's energy supply, delivering a blow to 
our economy at a time when we cannot afford such a disruption. It has 
been estimated that as much as 18 percent of our Nation's refined 
petroleum products come through the Port of Houston chemical complex.
  We saw what happened after Katrina and Rita came ashore in 2005, 
where America's energy coast was heavily damaged. Imagine the impact to 
the economy if 18 percent of our refining capacity was disrupted. It 
would be a huge economic and financial and, of course, human loss.
  The amendment I am cosponsoring with Senator Feinstein would require 
that Federal homeland security funds be allocated to States according 
to a risk-based assessment. Of course, that is the way these funds 
should be allocated. It would cover the major first responder grant 
program administered by the Homeland Security Department. It is only by 
doing this that all of our country and the people of our country will 
be the most safe. It is also consistent with the 9/11 Commission's 
recommendations to distribute homeland security assistance based upon 
threat and vulnerability assessment.
  This amendment is aligned with the Department of Homeland Security's 
goals for the increased allocation of grant funding based on protecting 
national priorities. I hope that all of our colleagues will see that 
protecting our Nation's highest priority areas will be in the interest 
of every American, rather than getting into the State-by-State 
squabbles, when, frankly, the big States usually lose because there are 
fewer big State votes in the Senate than small States. So if we go to 
the parochial interests of people from their States wanting more 
security grants, it is going to be hard to do the right thing.
  I submit to my colleagues that we should be looking at where the 
terrorists might strike and hurt all of our citizens, and that should 
be the basis upon which these risk-based grants would be awarded to the 
States.
  I thank my colleague from California for taking this initiative 
because it is so important for our country that this amendment be 
passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Texas for her support on this. I think we are both alike in that we say 
wherever there is threat and risk and vulnerability, that is where the 
money should go. If it is the State of Texas, that is fine with me. If 
it is the State of California, that is fine. If it is New York, 
Florida, Connecticut or Maine--wherever the threat and risk is--that is 
where the money should go. It is clear to me that the big States have 
felt very aggrieved. Big States with big landmarks, big ports, big oil 
and petroleum reserves and that kind of thing, feel definitely that 
they don't get the money they need to provide the protection they need. 
To that end, on March 5, I received and Senator Cornyn received a 
letter signed by Governor Schwarzenegger of California, Governor 
Spitzer of New York, Governor Crist of Florida, and Governor Perry of 
Texas.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 5, 2007.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn: We are writing 
     to thank you for your leadership in working to assure that 
     Department of Homeland Security (DHS) counterterrorism grant 
     programs recognize the homeland security needs of the United 
     States. Any effective strategy to secure our nation must 
     apply risk-based analyses to manage the threat from 
     terrorism. We believe that the Homeland Security FORWARD 
     Funding Act of 2007 will provide much needed changes to these 
     programs by better recognizing the risks and vulnerabilities 
     faced by larger states such as California, New York, Florida, 
     and Texas.
       We support the efforts of your bill to build a coordinated 
     and comprehensive system to maximize the use of federal 
     resources and to provide clear lines of authority and 
     communication. Your bill will further the efforts of DHS, 
     cities, counties and state agencies as they continue to work 
     together to detect, deter and respond to terrorism. 
     Specifically, we appreciate the following provisions of the 
     bill:
       Follows the 9/11 Commission Report recommendation to better 
     allocate federal resources based on vulnerabilities;

[[Page S2577]]

       Analyzes risks, threats, vulnerability, and consequences 
     related to potential terrorist attacks; current programs do 
     not give full consideration to our states' urban population 
     centers, numerous critical infrastructure assets, hundreds of 
     miles ofcoastland, maritime ports, and large international 
     borders;
       Reduces the ``small state'' minimum from 0.75% to 0.25%, 
     providing each state a baseline award while allocating an 
     increased level of funds based on risk; the current base + 
     per capita method allocates a disproportionate share of funds 
     to states with small populations;
       Continues the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program 
     and exempts the program from the base percentage, allocating 
     all funds based on risk;
       Maintains the Emergency Management Performance Grant 
     program as a separate program focused on capacity building 
     for all-hazards preparedness, response, recovery and 
     mitigation;
       Continues the central role of states, building on existing 
     systems that effectively coordinate planning efforts and 
     ensure accountability;
       Allows for limited regional applications from previously-
     designated UASI cities or other urban areas with at least a 
     population of at least 500,000;
       Retains the central role of states as the administrative 
     agent for the grants to ensure regional applications are 
     consistent with statewide plans; and
       Recognizes the importance of national standards for 
     evaluating the ``essential capabilities'' needed by state and 
     local governments to respond to threats.
       Your continued support for improving the nation's ability 
     to detect and deter and coordinate responses to terrorist 
     events is appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Arnold Schwarzenegger.
     Charlie Crist.
     Eliot Spitzer.
     Rick Perry.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by my friend from California and my friend from Texas.
  Let me first start by telling my colleagues that this is virtually 
identical to the same proposal the Senate voted on last July during 
consideration of the Homeland Security appropriations bill. In fact, 
the Senate has repeatedly voted on this formula issue throughout the 
past few years. The Senate has also repeatedly rejected the approach 
put forth by my colleagues from California and Texas. The last time 
this amendment was voted on, it was defeated by a vote of 36 to 64.
  This map says it all. The amendment offered by the Senator from 
California would cut homeland security grant dollars for 34 States and 
the District of Columbia. I emphasize that because I think by any 
reasonable analysis, the District of Columbia is a high-risk area. I am 
not stressing the District of Columbia just because the Presiding 
Officer is from Virginia but, rather, because it is an area that has 
been the subject of a terrorist attack.
  What the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment would do is reallocate the 
funding to turn it over to 16 States that already receive 60 percent of 
the funding. I think we have a basic philosophical disagreement in 
discussing how the homeland security money should be allocated. I 
certainly agree that risk should be a factor, but I also believe--and 
the testimony before our Homeland Security Committee confirms--that all 
States need to receive a predictable, reasonable base allocation of 
homeland security funding. States need that predictable multiyear 
funding in order to fund complex multiyear projects, such as creating 
interoperable communications networks or first responder training 
programs. Risk-based funding, even if it is distributed properly, is 
important, but it is likely to fluctuate dramatically from year to 
year.
  Furthermore, the minimums in this amendment are simply too low. Under 
this amendment, each State would only be assured of $2.28 million under 
the authorized levels for the Homeland Security Grant Program. That is 
just about half of the proposed Homeland Security Grant Program minimum 
in S. 4. I encourage Senators to talk to the first responders in their 
States--the police officers, the firefighters, the emergency managers--
to find out what gaps in homeland security would be left unfilled if 
they faced such a reduction.
  As one can see from this chart, there would be a substantial 
reduction under all of the homeland security programs. Let's take the 
interoperability program. We know States have not made nearly the 
progress that needs to be made in having compatible communications 
equipment. That was certainly one of the lessons from 9/11, where so 
many first responders lost their lives because they simply could not 
talk to one another. When the Homeland Security Committee did its in-
depth investigation into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, we 
found exactly the same kinds of interoperability problems. In fact, we 
found there were parishes within Louisiana where, within the same 
parish or county, the firefighters could not talk to the police 
officers, who in turn could not talk to the emergency medical 
personnel.
  The only way to ensure a base level of security and preparedness in 
each and every State is to require that there be a reasonable minimum 
amount of homeland security grant funding awarded to each State.
  The National Governors Association has said it well. The NGA has 
written to me that:

       To effectively protect our States and territories from 
     potential terrorist events, all sectors of government must be 
     part of an integrated plan to prevent, detect, and 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.

  It is important to note that the law requires States to develop 3-
year homeland security plans, and we are requiring any homeland 
security funding be used to accomplish those plans and to meet minimum 
levels of preparedness.
  I am surprised that many who are offering this amendment, which would 
give the Department even more latitude than it has now, are the same 
people who are expressing outrage at the way the Department used its 
authority last year to allocate the funding. I note that I joined in 
that outrage. As I told Secretary Chertoff at a hearing before our 
Homeland Security Committee, I would not have guessed he could have 
made both the State of Maine and New York City equally unhappy in how 
he allocated homeland security funds, but he managed to do just that.
  The Department is moving away from the methodology it used last year 
to allocate funding based on risk. New York Senators were very eloquent 
in describing the risk analysis DHS had used. For example, my 
colleague, Senator Schumer, said:

       The way that the Department of Homeland Security has given 
     out high-threat funding defies logic, and it is dangerous.

  That was typical of the comments that were made.
  I agree with my colleagues, and that is why we were so careful to 
come up with a different approach and one that includes strong 
accountability measures to address concerns, that requires the 
Department of Homeland Security to provide Congress with its risk 
allocation methodology in advance, and that also provides a 
predictable, stable level of funding which will allow States to meet 
their diverse needs.
  One of the important parts of the funding formula the Senator from 
Connecticut and I have labored so hard to put forth is providing 
assistance to law enforcement to try to detect and prevent attacks from 
happening in the first place.
  I must remind my colleagues that the leader of the attacks on our 
country on 9/11 started his journey of death

[[Page S2578]]

and destruction not from a large urban area but from Portland, ME. Just 
think if we could have detected that plot and arrested Mohamed Atta in 
Portland, ME, before he launched his attack.
  Risk is not an easy calculation. We saw that last year when the 
Department brought forth its very flawed methodology that made so many 
of us unhappy. But, unfortunately, we are seeing that approach used 
again by the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment because that flawed methodology 
which the sponsors of this amendment have embraced results in cuts to 
the District of Columbia--clearly a high-risk jurisdiction--and yet it 
would reduce funding for the District of Columbia. I think it 
jeopardizes the funding for 34 States--34 States, many of them border 
States that have obvious vulnerabilities, many of them coastal States 
that have obvious vulnerabilities. Then there is Kansas, with the 
threat of agraterrorism, about which I know the distinguished Senator 
from Kansas has been very concerned. Think of an attack on our food 
supply. That is much more likely to occur in a rural area. Think of an 
attack on a nuclear powerplant in a rural area.
  The point is, we have a lot of critical infrastructure in this 
country that is located outside our large urban centers. So we have to 
avoid embracing a flawed methodology, and we have to recognize that 
every State has risks and vulnerabilities and every State needs to 
achieve minimal levels of preparedness, and we clearly are not there 
yet.
  I hope we will, once again, turn down the well-intentioned but 
misguided amendment offered by the Senators from California and Texas. 
I believe it would really cause problems for our country as we try to 
strengthen our homeland security.
  I end this segment of my comments by noting a report by the RAND 
Corporation that was prepared for the National Memorial Institute for 
the Prevention of Terrorism in Oklahoma City, another place where there 
was a terrorist attack that would not generally be considered a high-
risk area. It says:

       Homeland security experts and first responders have 
     cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the 
     preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of small 
     communities or rural areas, and it recognizes that much of 
     the Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets 
     are located in rural areas.

  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Durbin). The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of 
the distinguished Senator from Maine, who does such an outstanding job, 
along with the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security 
Committee. I, too, rise in strong opposition to the amendment that is 
proposed by Senator Feinstein. Senator Collins pretty well summed it 
up, and my remarks might be somewhat repetitive, and I think they need 
to be.
  I know the Senator from California, no doubt, has the best of 
intentions. She has been an excellent member of the Intelligence 
Committee, when I had the privilege of being the chairman of that 
committee. She is working simply to increase the grant funding--which 
on the surface of it makes some sense--to high-population areas. I just 
don't think that reducing funding for the majority of our States and 
our great Nation, as the distinguished Senator has pointed out with her 
chart, is a viable way to protect against terrorism.
  If we as a country are going to be adequately prepared for another 
terrorist attack, we must not forget that we are vulnerable on all 
fronts. The States that would be negatively impacted by this proposal 
contain some of our Nation's most valuable assets.
  If we are going to reduce funds to States such as Kansas, this 
amendment tosses aside the risk to agriculture, as the Senator has 
pointed out, agraterrorism, although we don't use that term anymore 
because it used to scare a lot of people. We just call it ``food 
security,'' and it is a big-ticket item. Basically, that is the ability 
of our Nation's intelligence community, 19 different agencies, to 
protect our Nation's food supply, not to mention the oil and petroleum 
facilities that provide invaluable energy in this time of need to many 
Federal buildings and places of national significance that are 
scattered throughout our great Nation.

  So we cannot let ourselves believe if we only protect large cities 
and high-population States, we will be safe from the devious and the 
calculating minds of those who wish to do us harm. You only need to 
look at the Oklahoma City tragedy to understand this. Rather, preparing 
for what we expect in the densely populated area is a sure-fire way to 
be shocked and horrified should the unthinkable happen again.
  This legislation has been considered before. It was defeated soundly. 
To add it now as an amendment disregards the hard work many have done 
to negotiate a funding formula that most benefits our entire economy 
and our entire country. We cannot afford to compromise the security of 
an entire Nation for the benefit of a few areas. It is not where the 
people are, it is where the terrorists will attack and how and when.
  Let me say when I was the chairman of the Emerging Threats 
Subcommittee on the Armed Services Committee, I went to a secret city 
in Russia--there are approximately 11 of them--and they let us into a 
few because we had the Nunn-Lugar program that paid the scientists the 
Russians used to have making various armaments and bioweapons and 
viruses and all sorts of things. It certainly gives you pause to think 
about the fact that when Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union 
the ``evil empire,'' he was correct, if you looked at the stockpile of 
this weaponry. We were granted access to this research center, which is 
located outside of Moscow, about 60 miles. It is called Obninsk. We 
went in and saw what was being manufactured. I can assure you when they 
opened up the refrigerator doors, we stepped back a little bit.
  I will not go into everything in terms of what was being manufactured 
there, some of which is classified, but we thought under the Nunn-Lugar 
program the best thing we could do was to provide security. Yet how 
easy would it be for a terrorist group or somebody within the organized 
mafia of Russia today to latch on to any part of this stockpile, of 
which there are a great many, and transfer that to the United States 
and attack our food supply?
  We have had exercises. I have taken part in exercises. There was an 
exercise in regard to hoof and mouth disease. What happened was we got 
into a situation where the infestation period was 6 days, and we got 
past that, and then utter chaos developed. We lost in the process a 
large number of our livestock herd, all of our export stock, and when 
people finally figured out their food doesn't come from grocery stores, 
there was panic in our cities. We basically endangered our food supply 
not only for 1 year but for several years running.
  This is a very real threat. I can tell you as a former chairman of 
the Intelligence Committee, we worked very hard to get the intelligence 
community to first assess this and then to assess it in terms of a 
priority risk and a threat. That is exactly what we have done. This 
amendment does great harm to that effort and to adequate funding for 
all States and to assess the threats that certainly face all Americans. 
I am very hopeful we will oppose this amendment.
  Let's repeat what we have done in the past and safeguard all 
Americans as opposed to the individual, or the individual many, if that 
is the proper way to put it.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, what a pleasure to see you as the 
occupant of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is a pleasure to have the Senator address 
the Senate.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Kansas 
for his very compelling statement in which he speaks not so much on 
behalf of Kansas as based on his experience as the immediate past chair 
of the Intelligence Committee. He speaks to the threat of agro-
terrorism. We ought to start talking about it in that way again because 
it makes it so real.
  Like so many of the vulnerabilities we have in this terrorist age, 
where we have to worry about things we could not have imagined before, 
these are things we have to now both imagine and defend against. That 
is part of the

[[Page S2579]]

capacity that will be preserved in the funding formula that is fair and 
balanced found in the underlying bill, S. 4.
  I rise to oppose the Feinstein amendment. Senator Feinstein's 
amendment is actually one of three that will be introduced to change 
the funding formula for homeland security and natural disasters 
security that is in this underlying bill. Senator Obama has one which 
he will introduce tomorrow, Senator Feinstein has introduced this 
today, both of which would reduce the minimum first aid share. Senator 
Obama's would reduce the guaranteed funding share for 32 of the States 
in the country as compared to S. 4, the bill under consideration; and 
Senator Feinstein's would actually reduce the funding, as the chart 
Senator Collins held up indicates, for 34 of the States of our Union. 
Senator Leahy of Vermont will introduce an amendment that will increase 
the minimum per State to .75 percent of the total.
  In some sense, with two amendments trying to cut back the minimum per 
State and one intending to increase it, I hope that it suggests that 
Senator Collins and I and our committee have found a reasonable middle 
ground that gives most of the money to the States based on risk but 
recognizes that the risk to homeland security is national and not 
confined to the larger cities or the most prominent targets, as Senator 
Collins and Senator Roberts have made clear. We know, tragically from 
terrorist acts across the world, that terrorists have struck 
discotheques, schools in smaller town areas, and obviously metros and 
subways in other areas.

  Our proposal gives out most of the money based both on risk and a 
minimum per State so they can deal with their own local 
vulnerabilities. The members of the committee chose, I believe in our 
good judgment in this case, to establish the Homeland Security 
Department as an all-hazards protection department, not just protection 
against the terrorism we fear after 9/11, which we have, as I said 
earlier, a moral responsibility to protect the American people from. At 
the same time, because there is overlap, we can enable the States and 
localities and the Federal Government to protect their citizens against 
the impact and harm caused by natural disasters.
  In that sense, the funding formula in the underlying bill, S. 4, not 
only embraces and implements the lessons learned from 9/11 but also the 
lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina. It accurately reflects the 
world we live in today, a world where we know we have to protect the 
American people from acts of humans while also being able to respond to 
acts of nature.
  The second point I want to make is that these fights over funding 
formulas--and this is what we are in now--are well-intentioned, they 
are spirited, and they are important, but we must not be distracted 
from the larger point here, if I may say so respectfully, which is that 
it is not only who gets how much of the pie that is important, but 
equally important, perhaps ultimately more important, is the question 
of: How big is the pie? How much money is our country, our Federal 
Government, prepared to invest in protecting the security of the 
American people from another terrorist attack or from a natural 
disaster?
  I am very proud that this bill, S. 4, authorizes significant 
additional funds for homeland security grants and related grants, 
restoring, in the case of homeland security grants, overall funding to 
the fiscal year 2004 level of $3.1 billion for each of the next 3 
years. The fact is, shockingly, if we stop to think about it, that the 
administration has recommended cuts in homeland security grant funding 
since 2004.
  The threat has not gone down. We know, in fact, of publicly reported 
intelligence that al-Qaida and the Taliban are again amassing in the 
area of the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan, that training 
camps are being established there again, and that people are coming to 
train not just to fight in Afghanistan but with the heightened 
probability that they will plan terrorist attacks against the rest of 
the world, including American targets. Nonetheless, the funding for 
these homeland security grants has gone down over the last 3 years.
  What is our goal? It is not a lavish or radical one in terms of 
funding. This bill proposes to take us back to the level at which we 
were funding one category of grants, homeland security grants, to where 
it was in fiscal year 2004, $3.1 billion, and to continue that at that 
same level for the next 3 years. If we do that, this legislation will 
send a strong signal that this trend of cutting homeland security 
funding is over. It will send a message that we are not disarming our 
first responders, or squeezing them as they attempt to protect us and 
prevent terrorist attacks.
  This increase in funding will also send another message. Just as we 
support our troops fighting in the war on terrorism throughout the 
world, we need to adequately support our troops, I would call them, our 
first responders, our firefighters, our police, and our emergency 
response personnel. We need to support those who are on the front lines 
fighting for us, protecting us when disaster strikes right here at home 
in the United States.
  While we go on with this debate on these three amendments that seek 
to alter the funding formula in the underlying bill, S. 4, I hope we 
will all keep in mind that this legislation authorizes, and if 
adequately funded by our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, a 
significant expansion in the size of America's homeland security grant 
funding pie.
  I also will talk briefly about the specific programs this legislation 
will authorize that the three amendments, Senator Feinstein's, Senator 
Obama's, and Senator Leahy's, would alter, two cutting and one adding 
to our allocation to each State in the country. Two of the four funding 
programs dealt with in this underlying bill are devoted specifically to 
dealing with the risk of terrorism, to improving the capacity of State 
and local responders to do exactly that.
  Two others are also designed to address all hazards; in some sense to 
maximize what we get for our investment. When I say ``all hazards,'' I 
am speaking of natural disasters. As we saw in Katrina, that can cause 
as much or, in some cases, more damage to our country and our people 
than a terrorist attack.
  Let me go first to risk-based funding for urban areas, one of the 
four programs. S. 4 authorizes in law the Urban Area Security 
Initiative, known in the field as UASI, to assist high-risk urban areas 
in preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism. All 
UASI funds would be given to the urban area based on risk--totally 
based on risk--from a terrorist attack and the effectiveness of the 
proposed uses in addressing that risk. There is no minimum funding per 
state or locality. It is totally up to the Department of Homeland 
Security's assessment of risk.
  The 100 largest metropolitan areas in the United States would be 
eligible to apply for funding. I am pleased to say here, too, we 
increased the funding; $1.279 billion would be authorized for UASI for 
each of the next three years, which is significantly more than the $770 
million provided this year or the $800 million proposed in the 
administration's fiscal year 2008 budget.
  The second risk-based funding for states, the other program designed 
specifically to help state and local officials cope with the risk of 
terrorism, is the State Homeland Security Grant Program. S. 4 
authorizes this program to be funded at $913 million for each of the 
next three years to assist state, local and tribal governments in 
preventing, preparing for, and responding to acts of terrorism. This is 
a significant increase over the $550 million that would go to this 
State Homeland Security Grant Program this year, not to mention the 
$250 million cut of the $300 million of the President's proposed budget 
in this program for fiscal year 2008. Most important--and I think it is 
very significant with all that will be said about the formulas--as we 
calculated under the approach of S. 4, an estimated 95 percent of these 
so-called SHSGP funds, State Homeland Security Grant Program funds, 
would be given out based on risk to the state from a terrorist attack, 
and on effectiveness of the proposed uses in addressing that risk.
  While each state would be assured of receiving a minimum of .45 
percent of the overall funds of this program, the Department will 
calculate distributions based on risk first and then only make any 
adjustments necessary to bring all the states up to the guaranteed 
minimum.

[[Page S2580]]

  As we apply the formula of risk allocation that the Department 
applied this year, we come to the conclusion that 95 percent of these 
funds would actually be distributed based on risk.
  The third program: All-Hazards Emergency Management Funding. This is 
a reorganized, refocused, and greatly increased program that will have 
tremendous effect in protecting the American people from all hazards, 
man-made and natural. S. 4 authorizes what we call the Emergency 
Management Performance Grants Program, EMPG, to assist states in 
preparing for and responding to all hazards, including natural 
disasters, other manmade disasters, and terrorism. The legislation 
significantly increases the authorization amount for this critically 
important program from about $200 million to $913 million for each of 
the next three years. That is obviously a significant increase, four 
and a half times what it is now. Each state would receive a base amount 
of .75 percent of the overall funds, with the remaining funds 
distributed in proportion to a state's population, which continues the 
current allocation practice. This program, as I have said, is an all-
hazards program. Every state in the country is vulnerable or subject to 
be the target of some kind of hazard, whether it is terrorism or a 
natural disaster that is different depending on which part of the 
country you are in, which is a hurricane, a tornado--as we have seen 
occur last week with devastating effect on our fellow Americans, 
earthquake--of which we have seen too many taking precious lives and 
destroying property all across our country. I speak of these natural 
disasters. These are risks that all States face so we think it 
appropriate to ensure that each State receives .75 percent of the 
overall funding.
  Finally, the fourth program is Dedicated Grants for Communications 
Interoperability. In our committee, Senator Collins and I worked very 
hard on this, and I must say we are very proud to establish this grant 
program. It is dedicated to improving communications operability and 
interoperability at local, regional, state and federal levels. We have 
been through this on the floor before. We saw both on 9/11 and in 
Hurricane Katrina, when first responders cannot talk to one another 
because they have different radio systems or they can't talk at all 
because the systems have broken down, response to the disaster is 
greatly compromised and lives are lost. That is exactly what we are 
aiming to prevent with this.
  Incidentally, this is a problem that is not new with 9/11 or with 
Hurricane Katrina. The truth is, it has gone on unsolved for years, 
even though we had evidence of it from 1982, when Air Florida crashed 
in Washington, to the 1995 attack on the Alfred E. Murrah Federal 
Building in Oklahoma City, to the 1999 shootings at Columbine High 
School near Little, Colorado. In each of those cases, there were 
communication breakdowns, not as well known as those on 9/11, that 
compromised the response and compromised the safety of our fellow 
Americans. This is a national problem. It affects all states. That is 
why we propose that each state would receive a minimum of .75 percent 
of the total funds. This legislation authorizes a total of $3.3 billion 
spread out over five years for this communications interoperability 
grant program.
  I wish to stress here about this and about the Homeland Security 
Grant Programs, that we are mindful of the few cases--but too often 
cited by critics--in which local governments have used grant money 
under these programs in ways that do not, to any of us, seem like they 
relate. In the case of interoperability communications, we state very 
clearly in the bill that to qualify for these programs you have to make 
a proposal that is not just something the local law enforcement chief 
thinks would be a nice thing to have, it has to be consistent with a 
state's emergency communications plan in the National Emergency 
Communications Plan. Otherwise, states are simply not going to receive 
funding.

  The same is true in the Homeland Security Grant Fund Program. One of 
the bases of the judgments of the use of the funds is clearly stated: 
``The effectiveness of the proposed use in addressing that risk.''
  In the few cases where sadly, infuriatingly, Homeland Security grant 
money has been spent on things that don't seem at all to be related to 
homeland security, in the language under S. 4, we are going to stop 
that from happening and guarantee that this money is spent in a way 
that will increase the American people's sense of security from 
terrorists and natural disasters.
  I believe these four programs together, if enacted and properly 
funded, will make our country much safer. They will provide the men and 
women on the front lines here at home with the essential tools they 
need to protect the American people and save lives. They will make sure 
that funds targeted for building terrorism-specific capability go out 
overwhelmingly to those states and urban areas that our intelligence 
and our common sense tells us are most at risk from terrorist attack. 
But they will also provide funds that are adequate in the post-
9/11, post-Katrina world, to make sure that all states can prepare for 
and be ready to respond to disasters.
  This is going to be an important debate. I look forward to 
participating in it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask to set aside the pending amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Amendment No. 336 to Amendment No. 275

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to the 9/
11 Commission recommendations bill. After I have an opportunity to 
address these amendments, I ask they be set aside so we may proceed 
with further proceedings on the bill.
  I hope we can reach agreement, I say to my friend from Connecticut. I 
hope we can reach agreement on these amendments, as they are critical 
to making sure our homeland security dollars are spent wisely in the 
way that will do the most to protect our Nation.
  Nearly 6 years since the tragedy of September 11, Congress finally 
has the opportunity to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. The 9/11 Commission has done a tremendous job providing our 
Nation with the tools to make our Nation safer and now is the time for 
Congress to act and to get it right.
  I thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for their hard work and 
dedication to this bill and thank my colleague from New York, Senator 
Clinton, for joining me on these two important amendments.
  We are here today to talk about one of the most important pieces of 
the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, funding the Homeland Security 
Grant Program, administered under the Department of Homeland Security. 
Unfortunately, DHS has not always approached the allocation of vital 
homeland security dollars the way the 9/11 Commission intended. The 9/
11 Commission intended that homeland security funds, including the 
high-threat Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, and the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, be allocated based on risk. In 
fiscal year 2006, the most high-risk and high-threat cities in the 
Nation, New York City and Washington DC, two cities which suffered 
tremendously from the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, received a 
40-percent cut in high-threat UASI funding from DHS. Using a peer 
review process, DHS made funding decisions based on including popcorn 
factories and petting zoos, while cities such as New York were forced 
to cut key security initiatives such as staff patrols on the Brooklyn 
Bridge and NYPD inspection of backpacks within the New York City subway 
system.
  DHS relied on an untested system of peer review in 2006 to allocate 
high-threat security funding, and it failed miserably. A 40-percent cut 
in high-threat funds for our highest risk cities is unacceptable and 
exactly the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Despite 
the firestorm of criticism that the Homeland Security Department faced 
for its UASI allocation of funding in 2006, DHS decided once again to 
use the peer review process when allocating high-threat funding in 
2007. That makes one doubt the thinking that is going on in DHS, not 
only on this issue.
  So I ask amendment No. 336 be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

[[Page S2581]]

  The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer], for himself and Mrs. 
Clinton, proposes an amendment numbered 336 to amendment No. 275.
  Mr. SCHUMER. 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 prohibit the use of the peer review process in determining 
 the allocation of funds among metropolitan areas applying for grants 
               under the Urban Area Security Initiative)

       On page 64, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:
       ``(e) Prohibition of Peer Review Process.--The peer review 
     process may not be used in determining the allocation of 
     funds among metropolitan areas applying for grants under this 
     section.

  Mr. SCHUMER. This amendment will bar DHS from using the peer review 
process when making allocations for high-threat UASI funding. Our most 
targeted cities should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of an 
untested bureaucratic process that clearly does not have the best 
interests of our high-risk cities as its No. 1 priority.
  DHS was wrong about the effectiveness of the peer review process, and 
it has also been off the mark on the amount of homeland security funds 
that can be used to cover personnel and overtime.
  This bill makes clear that different cities under very different 
levels of risk have very different security needs. We should not be 
punishing cities such as New York that must rely on personnel to make 
our cities safer.
  One example is our bridges because they have been targeted. The 
Brooklyn Bridge near my home, which I take back and forth all the time, 
has two police officers at each end 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That 
is 20 police officers. If one looks at policeman hours, four times 
five, five shifts is what it takes to cover 24/7. That kind of funding 
is essential to the safety of New York, yet it is limited by the 
process. Our amendment would change that.


                 Amendment No. 337 to Amendment No. 275

  I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be set aside so that I may 
call up amendment No. 337.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New York [Mr. Schumer] proposes amendment 
     numbered 337 to amendment No. 275.

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

   (Purpose: To provide for the use of funds in any grant under the 
  Homeland Security Grant Program for personnel costs, and for other 
                               purposes)

       On page 59, between lines 9 and 10, insert the following:
       ``(f) Use of Grant Funds for Personnel Costs.--The 
     Secretary may not provide for any limitation on the 
     percentage or amount of any grant awarded under the Homeland 
     Security Grant Program which may be used for personnel costs, 
     including overtime or backfill costs.
       On page 86, strike lines 6 through 20.

  Mr. SCHUMER. This amendment also addresses a critical shortfall in 
previous allocations for homeland security funding: the payment of 
overtime for first responders such as police officers. High-threat 
cities such as New York can't rely on equipment and technology alone to 
get the job done. New York City, with its vast population and national 
landmarks, needs trained, expert personnel guarding its tunnels, 
bridges, and landmarks to keep New Yorkers and the huge amount of 
visitors it has every year safe.
  Having trained security personnel available at all times to protect 
our citizens is not an issue unique to New York City. In this difficult 
budget climate, cities across the country are faced with hard choices 
when it comes to keeping our citizens safe from terrorists. The 
Department of Homeland Security should allow our cities and States the 
ability to fund the activities necessary to protect our citizens.
  The potential for terror is not limited to 8-to-5 shifts. We need to 
give our cities and States the resources they need to do their job. If 
they should choose to use overtime in funding in their UASI allocation, 
they should be allowed to do it.


                           Amendment No. 335

  I also would like to take a moment to talk about Senator Feinstein's 
amendment that I am cosponsoring along with several of my colleagues. 
The Feinstein amendment will lower the minimum grant for the State 
Homeland Security Grant Program to .25, lower than the .45 proposed in 
the Senate version of the bill. The amendment will also lower the 
minimum for interoperable communications to .25, down from .75 in the 
bill. While I appreciate the committee raising the amount of funding 
for SHSGP funds to $913 million, well above the amount included in the 
President's 2008 budget, the formula minimums included in the Senate 
bill provided less funding for New York.
  New York is not alone. Other States, such as California and Texas, 
will also face cuts in funding unless we lower the minimum in the 
Senate bill. We can't allow our larger cities and most vulnerable 
targets to be left relatively unprepared for a major attack relative to 
other cities because they are not given the Federal resources they 
deserve.
  Some in the Senate will make the argument that States across the 
country have needs that must be addressed, and we need to be prepared 
in all communities. While I understand their concern, the Senate has 
recognized that need by authorizing the emergency management 
performance grants in the same amount as the SHSGP grants and by 
providing EMPG grants with a .75 minimum to address all-hazard needs 
across the country.
  In addition to EMPG grants, the Senate has also provided a minimum 
amount of funding for interoperability communications grants, something 
the city of New York has spent millions on since 9/11 so the rest of 
the country might implement this valuable technology.
  Now is the time for the Senate to do the right thing. While I applaud 
the overall work of Senators Lieberman and Collins on this important 
bill, one area we have strayed is in the area of grant funding. I know 
they come from smaller States. Obviously, they are defending their 
States. But if we are allocating money on the basis of need, on the 
basis of where the greatest threat of terrorism is, the funding formula 
here does not really do the job.
  The 9/11 Commission, for instance, neither from a smaller State or 
bigger State perspective and looking at things objectively, recommends 
that funding be allocated on risk alone. The minimums allocated in this 
bill do not do that. One need look only as far as the tragedy of 9/11 
to answer the question of why funding for the most targeted cities is 
the most important.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment. We have the 
opportunity to fix the past mistakes at DHS and ensure that the 
appropriate amount of funding is distributed in a way that will benefit 
all and ensure that highest risk areas are adequately protected. Now is 
that time.
  I look forward to working with the committee on these important 
amendments to the way the bill addresses the grant program. I know the 
committee shares my commitment to ensuring our first responders and all 
critical homeland security needs have the funding needed to protect our 
citizens. The committee has done important work to authorize for the 
first time funding for the grant programs. I look forward to working 
with Senators Lieberman and Collins on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein-Cornyn 
amendment. I am proud to serve as a cosponsor. As my colleagues know, 
we have spent the past week debating legislation to once and for all 
fully implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission 
delivered in July 2004. This bill before us, along with its counterpart 
already passed in the House, would largely do just that by making it 
more difficult for terrorists to gain access into our country by 
enhancing information sharing in our intelligence community and 
homeland security apparatus so that we can truly connect the dots in 
future plots against our Nation, and by providing genuine

[[Page S2582]]

incentives to the private sector to do their part in order to 
strengthen their preparedness to prevent and respond to acts of 
terrorism.
  The bill would also provide much needed funding to enhance the 
security of our rail and transit systems, including Amtrak's northeast 
corridor, a rail system that carries tens of thousands of passengers 
every day along the east coast, including my home State of 
Pennsylvania, and which remains unacceptably vulnerable to terrorist 
attack.
  However, we must be honest. The bill does not fully implement every 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Chapter 12 in the Commission's 
final report addresses the difficult challenge of allocating limited 
funds across the Nation to address an array of homeland security 
vulnerabilities and gaps. The report recognizes that we as a nation 
cannot protect every vulnerable port, every vulnerable icon, and every 
vulnerable spot where Americans congregate every day. A universal 
approach would turn our Nation into an armed fortress, too restrictive 
of the liberties we cherish and love as Americans. That would be a 
victory for the terrorists.

  Let me quote directly from the bipartisan Commission report which 
lays out in plain and clear language why it is so important that we 
allocate homeland security dollars on the basis of risk:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. Now, in 2004, 
     Washington, D.C., and New York are certainly at the top of 
     any such list. We understand the contention that every state 
     and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for 
     emergency response. But federal homeland security assistance 
     should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It 
     should supplement state and local resources based on the 
     risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. 
     Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.

  So says the 9/11 Commission Report. The Commission calls for a strict 
prioritization of national needs based upon a strict risk-based 
assessment. Those potential targets that are most attractive to 
terrorist groups, that contain the most deep-seated vulnerabilities to 
an attack, and that, if successfully attacked, would produce the most 
drastic consequences in terms of lives lost, people injured, and 
economic damage should be given priority in terms of allocating our 
limited homeland security dollars.
  This definition of risk, which successfully incorporates the three 
variables of threat, vulnerability, and consequence, has been 
recommended by countless academic experts and is now incorporated into 
the Department of Homeland Security's framework for assessing how to 
rank various targets in our Nation in terms of their likelihood for a 
future attack. Unfortunately, the Congress has not kept pace with the 
recommendation of the 9/11 Commission, and the bill before us this week 
still does not get it right, even though it purports to fully implement 
the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  This bill, while superb in almost every other respect, would still 
retain the misguided approach first established by the PATRIOT Act that 
would mandate that each State receive a minimum of .75 percent of 
overall funding for most of the homeland security grant programs, 
including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law 
Enforcement Terrorist Prevention Program, and the Citizen Corps 
Program. In other words, 38 percent of the funding dollars for our 
major homeland security grant initiatives is allocated on an arbitrary 
basis, wholly unrelated to risk. Thirty-eight percent of these funding 
dollars is distributed in such a fashion that every State receives the 
exact same share, with equal dollars flowing to large States such as 
Pennsylvania and New York, as well as much smaller States.
  This makes no sense. Every State is not equally at risk from the 
threat of terrorism and is thus eligible for equal dollar amounts. I 
recognize that the remaining 62 percent of funds under these homeland 
security grants are now based on risk, but it is wrong and harmful to 
deny almost half of all funds to those areas that are at greatest risk.
  That is why I am so pleased to cosponsor the Feinstein amendment 
which would reduce those per-State minimums from .75 percent of overall 
grant funding to .25 percent. In other words, instead of 62 percent of 
funding allocated on the basis of risk, 87 percent of all grant funds 
would be allocated on a risk basis.
  Is that a perfect solution? No, it is not. In a perfect world, 100 
percent of funds in every homeland security program would be allocated 
on the basis of risk, and State-by-State minimums would become a 
historic relic. But I understand political realities, and I recognize 
this amendment by itself will face a real challenge in achieving 
passage. The Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, by replicating a provision in 
the 9/11 bill that passed the House in January, nevertheless would 
significantly improve the quality of our homeland security funding by 
requiring a greater share of it be allocated on the basis of risk.
  This issue is often unfairly characterized as a large State versus 
small State battle. Those States with large populations would 
supposedly automatically benefit under any funding formula that is 
based to a greater degree on risk while small States would lose or so 
the argument goes. That would be true only if we use population levels 
as a proxy for risk, which this amendment does not do.
  Instead, the Feinstein amendment defines risk as a function of 
threat, vulnerability, and consequence. So a small State with several 
targets that are uniquely at risk due to a combination of these three 
variables would profit from this amendment just as a State as large as 
New York or New Jersey or Pennsylvania.
  This amendment, to the greatest extent possible, takes individual 
States out of the formula. It focuses on where and what our Nation's 
targets of terrorism are and where the greatest risks lie and focuses 
our homeland security dollars on those targets. Those who hail from 
small States should not reflexively oppose this amendment. The fact 
remains, their States can benefit--small States can benefit--from 
greater funding under this new formula.

  Will there be losers under this new formula? Sure. Of course. Those 
States with a minimum level of potential targets at great risk would 
receive potentially less funding. But I am confident the people of 
those States will recognize the enormity of the stakes involved: how to 
best protect our Nation in a long struggle against terrorism. I have 
faith the American people will put aside parochial concerns in favor of 
those strategies that protect all of us.
  I hail from a State that sits at the higher end of the range of 
vulnerability to attacks of terrorism. Under the Urban Areas Security 
Initiative, or UASI, two urban regions in Pennsylvania have been 
consistently designated as high risk in this program since its 
inception in fiscal year 2003: Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.
  Philadelphia is home to such historic sites as Independence Hall and 
the Liberty Bell. It is also a major hub for Amtrak's Northeast 
corridor, a vital transportation artery that links Washington to Boston 
and points further beyond. We have seen what the terrorists have done 
in Madrid and London and other places. If they seek to export their 
tactics to our Nation, the Northeast corridor, including Philadelphia's 
30th Street Station, would be a prime target.
  Also, the city of Pittsburgh includes world-class universities, major 
sports stadiums, and other icons of national significance.
  There is a reason why both cities have been included in the 15 most 
at-risk urban regions in the United States and are eligible for grants 
under the UASI program. The UASI program is the only homeland security 
program that operates fully--fully--on the basis of risk. For that 
reason, it is the most effective program, as it allocates dollars 
without regard to State by State minimums or political guidelines.
  Future terrorist acts endanger the people of Pennsylvania, and I will 
continue to stand up for them to assure our homeland security programs 
are appropriately focused on the threats where they are. I understand 
no State or its representative Members want to lose out on additional 
Federal dollars. But I would once again quote from the 9/11 Commission 
report which has served as the inspiration behind our entire debate on 
this important bill. In concluding that risk-based funding is the only 
way for our Nation to apportion homeland security dollars, the 
Commission declared that:


[[Page S2583]]


       In a free-for-all over money, it is understandable that 
     representatives will work to protect the interests of their 
     home states or districts. But this issue is too important for 
     politics as usual to prevail.

  ``Too important for politics as usual to prevail.'' After the horrors 
of 9/11, we cannot ignore the significance of that call to duty.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Feinstein-
Cornyn amendment so we can ensure our precious homeland security 
resources are allocated in a fair and efficient manner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Klobuchar). The junior Senator from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise in strong support of the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this 
effort. This amendment would enact one of the key recommendations of 
the 9/11 Commission that has gone ignored time and time again by the 
Congress, and that is ensuring homeland security funding is based on 
risk.
  We have heard a lot during the course of the debate on this bill. 
Often we have had references to the 9/11 Commission when it was 
propitious, when it served to support the argument someone was making 
at a given time. Then, at other times, it has been forgotten. I have 
been one of those who believes we should have all of the 9/11 
recommendations implemented. So I do not pick and choose.
  I am certainly tonight wanting to make sure we recognize as a body 
what the Commission said. It was not ambivalent. The Commission was not 
ambivalent about its recommendation. The Commission said, in its 
report, very clearly:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.

  `` . . . strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' 
``Strictly''--not mostly, not partially, but based strictly on the 
risks our States and communities face. Yet, 2\1/2\ years after the 
release of the 9/11 Commission report, homeland security funding 
continues to be based on a formula that allocates nearly 40 percent of 
funding with no regard--no regard--to risk or vulnerability.
  What else did the Commission say:
       We understand the contention that every State and city 
     needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency 
     response. But Federal homeland security assistance should not 
     remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should 
     supplement State and local resources based on the risks or 
     vulnerabilities that merit additional support.
       Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.

  It is past time to correct these flawed formulas.
  I know many believe that, in fact, everyone should have some of these 
moneys. Actually, this amendment does that. This amendment recognizes 
that. It does not encompass the full essence of the Commission's 
report. It recognizes that. So, ultimately, I would say to our friends, 
notwithstanding that, there are times when we have legislation on this 
floor that benefits some States greater than others, but we look at it 
as we are from one country. There are times in which there is a lot 
more money for flood protection, and those of us who do not receive 
that type of money say: We understand that. That is the nature of the 
challenges of those fellow States in our Nation. In the agriculture 
bill there will be a lot of money going to other States that certainly 
will not be coming to States such as New Jersey, but we understand 
that. We are one nation.
  Today, I hope the Members of the Senate will come to understand in 
this issue, as well, we are one nation and the greatest risks--the 
greatest risks--flow to those who have the greatest challenges. If we 
had unlimited money, I would be the first to say we could use it all as 
part of revenue sharing to make sure the allocation for each State 
would be such that they could decide to use it to meet their homeland 
security objectives. But we do not. If there is one part of all of the 
largess of the Federal Government that I think has to be based on the 
question of necessity, has to be based on the question of risk, it 
clearly is in homeland security funding.
  Now, I believe, as do many of my colleagues who support this 
amendment, we should follow the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission 
in its entirety and base 100 percent of the homeland security funding 
on risk. But this amendment recognizes the need to compromise. We 
recognize every State should be prepared for and be able to respond to 
terrorism. Under this amendment, each State would receive a base 
amount. The difference is, we ensure the vast majority of the funds 
will be based on risk. In fact, under this amendment, 99 percent of all 
of the funds would be allocated based on risk.
  Senators Lieberman and Collins clearly recognize we should be basing 
funding more on risk. In this bill they have clearly worked to reduce 
the base amount for States, moving us toward a more risk-based 
approach. I sincerely appreciate their efforts to make more funding 
allocated on risk, and I certainly commend them for taking a very 
important step forward in the right direction. But that formula is 
still a detriment to States facing the most risk.
  Under the bill's language, money would be diverted from States with 
the highest risk to States that do not even have enough risk to receive 
the minimum base amount. What does that mean? It means after the 
calculation is done, there will be some States with a risk equation 
that will not rise to the level of receiving even the minimum base 
amount. Yet, under the bill, even though their risk calculation is not 
as great, they will receive the minimum base amount. This would cause 
States such as New Jersey to lose a full 6 percent of the funding they 
should receive based on risk. That means under the formula in this 
bill, New Jersey could lose three-quarters of a million dollars because 
that money would be redistributed to States with relatively low risk.
  Like many other States represented by the supporters of this 
amendment, New Jersey has a wide range of targets. More than a dozen 
sites in the State are on the FBI's National Critical Infrastructure 
List. The 2-mile stretch between Port Newark, Port Elizabeth and Newark 
International Airport has been deemed the ``most dangerous two miles in 
the United States when it comes to terrorism.'' The port of New York 
and New Jersey, which largely resides in New Jersey, is the largest 
container port on the east coast, the third largest in the country.
  Not only does our State face significant threats because of its 
critical infrastructure, but some of the most densely populated 
communities are in close proximity to these targets. In South Kearny, 
for instance, 12 million people live in close proximity to a chlorine 
chemical plant. Close to 19 million people live in the New Jersey-New 
York metro area who could be affected by an attack on such a plant. The 
loss of life due to an attack at one of New Jersey's most vulnerable 
targets would not only devastate New Jersey but the region and the 
Nation.
  We have to be realistic about where the greatest threats lie. Our 
Nation has many targets. No one would argue we should not aim to 
protect each of them. But we cannot pretend every community in the 
country faces the same risks and the same threats of terrorist attack. 
The fact is, terrorists want to strike where they can inflict 
the greatest damage. That is why our major urban areas are consistently 
at the top of the threat list.

  We cannot afford to shortchange our most at-risk targets because of 
revenue sharing. Each State should receive its fair share based on its 
risks--no more, no less. That is what this amendment is all about. 
Ultimately, I see our colleagues, who are the prime sponsors of this 
amendment, put out a statement that 70 percent of the States receive 
additional funding under this risk-based approach--70 percent of the 
States. So we, in fact, move closer and closer to the right policy 
determination that the 9/11 Commission called for, unequivocally, and, 
at the same time, by doing the right thing, 70 percent of the States 
get more money.
  The 9/11 Commission has repeatedly called on Congress to implement 
this key provision, and it has urged Congress not to make homeland 
security funds into pork barrel. The 9/11 families pleaded with this 
body to end the senseless formulas that leave our most at-risk targets 
vulnerable. Countless homeland security experts have called to end the 
minimum amounts to States and move to a true risk-based system.

[[Page S2584]]

  I hope my colleagues this one time will put aside their adherence to 
a formula that is not in the security interests of our nation as a 
whole--as a whole--and will now allocate funding in a way that will 
protect not just my State or other States similarly situated but will 
truly work to protect the Nation as a whole.
  When we had those attacks on that fateful day on September 11, yes, 
most of the lives lost were from New York and New Jersey, as well as 
other States, but the consequences to the Nation were much greater--
much greater.
  So I hope again, where the greatest threats lie, where the greatest 
risks lie, where we have seen time after time where the terrorists have 
chosen to try to focus their attacks, we understand this is one element 
of our domestic policy where we cannot afford simply to have revenue 
sharing. I have taken agricultural votes on behalf of our friends, 
understanding that a lot of that money is not coming to New Jersey. I 
have done the same thing with flood protection and done it on so many 
other issues because we are one Nation. This is one in which we are 
under one Nation as well, and it is one in which risk has to drive our 
funding. I hope that when 70 percent of other States receive additional 
support under this amendment, we will find a majority vote on its 
behalf and move us pretty close to what the 9/11 Commission called for.

  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I first wish to say that my 
colleague delivered a message that was clear and specific. It was a 
very valuable reminder of what we are discussing today, including his 
commentary about the fact that we are as a nation looking at the 
problem we see in front of us now.
  On September 11, 2001, 700 of our fellow New Jerseyans never came 
home. One of my daughter's closest friends with whom she worked on Wall 
Street perished, and her husband searched for more than 2 weeks. After 
the obvious was apparent--that she was gone--refusing to believe it, he 
went from hospital to hospital, wherever one was within any reasonable 
distance, hoping against hope that maybe his wife would be alive and 
the mother of his three children would be there to encourage them on in 
their lives.
  The stories about all kinds of friends and all kinds of neighbors are 
endless. In the area we are talking about in New Jersey that was 
directly hit, who didn't know someone or who didn't know someone who 
knew someone--even though we are a densely populated State, still, in 
all, the names touched so many lives and so many people. We saw the 
smoke rise and debris fall on that fateful day. It was just across the 
river from us and from where I live and I think close to where my 
colleague lives. When one looks at the skyline of New York now, there 
is an empty space where these proud buildings stood. I was a 
commissioner for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and 
thusly had offices in the Trade Center building. I remember seeing 
people come to work in the morning, over 50,000 people in just a few 
buildings--more than the population of many cities in our country. It 
was devastating.
  We shouldn't forget that attack brought aviation to a standstill, 
that it had an effect felt way beyond New York and New Jersey and 
highlighted the fact that you can't just take areas, important areas 
around the country, and say: Well, that is kind of a local situation. 
It is not true. It is not true. As Senator Menendez pointed out, when 
it comes to other needs of other States, it has to be understood that 
when they are in peril, they are entitled to get as much help from the 
Federal Government as they can.
  So why are we protesting at this time? This discussion has taken 
place over the last couple of years. Now we are seeing another attempt 
to reduce the maximum amount of funding available to those places which 
are most at risk.
  I support most of the legislation before us now. I am concerned with 
the one part of this bill that does not follow the 9/11 Commission 
recommendations, the one that is being reviewed right now. 
Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission Report said that homeland 
security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. This bill 
doesn't go sufficiently far enough to a full risk-based approach. 
Secretary Chertoff, whom we have seen here at many hearings, confirmed 
that. We looked at what he said. He said we should look not at the 
question of political jurisdiction but at where the consequences would 
be catastrophic, where the vulnerabilities would be, where the threats 
are. Clear statements. Despite that, this legislation directs the 
Department of Homeland Security to give a minimum amount of money to 
every State regardless of the risks or threats it faces.
  When I served on the Homeland Security Committee--and I commend the 
former chairman and the current chairman for a lot of the work that was 
done there--we had a disagreement, and I tried in a committee hearing 
to move the committee at least to endorse the fact that these funds 
should be distributed solely on a risk basis. I was the only one who 
voted aye for it out of I think 16 people in attendance.
  So at some point, I don't know why the call doesn't go out that says: 
Look, do this on a sensible basis. Do this on an as-needed basis. Give 
the opportunity to the places most at risk to protect themselves. It is 
more than good policy; it just makes common sense. Our military doesn't 
move troops evenly around the globe. You place your resources 
strategically. Why should homeland security be different? If you want 
to protect the most people in our country from risk, why not do that? 
We do that constantly in all kinds of projects, whether they be flood 
projects or otherwise in places that are prone to natural disasters. It 
makes sense that we spend more on homeland security in America's at-
risk areas.
  Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn and I and others have an 
amendment to give at-risk States the money they need to protect their 
residents and their communities and sensitive places where an attack 
could severely damage the national viability.
  We have seen something recently that highlights the situation in New 
Jersey where chlorine is manufactured and stored in large quantities, 
and we learned from the change in the tactics now in Iraq that chlorine 
is being used as a brandnew weapon there. The use of chlorine was 
devastating. It killed a few people but made many more deathly ill, 
requiring hospitalization and severe treatment to try to protect their 
lives.

  We are talking about the most dangerous 2 miles in the country as 
certified by the FBI. Why not take advantage of the fact that we would 
be protecting not only the well-being of people in the surrounding 
area, but we would protect the functioning of our society. So we ought 
to move closer to the 9/11 Commission's recommendation that homeland 
security be distributed on risk and threat and cut the minimum amount 
of money that will be distributed to each State.
  Secondly, it will result in more homeland security for 35 States that 
are more at risk. We are not just talking about New Jersey and New 
York; they are most prominent because we felt it and we have lost 
friends and neighbors as a result of that attack. But that was not the 
first time. It was the second time the World Trade Center was attacked. 
How many times must it happen before somebody who is leaning on one 
side or the other says: You know what, we don't want those people to be 
harmed further or that area to be damaged further. And the invitation 
is certainly there to do just that.
  We must consider the large States such as Ohio. If something happens 
in some of the Western States, the way the winds blow in our country, 
they will deliver toxic emissions all the way across the country--
Georgia, for instance, and Nevada, Maryland, and Massachusetts. The 
array is impressive because it deals primarily with the largest 
population centers in the country and the money that could be brought 
to protect these centers should not just be dealt out on a traditional 
pork-like basis. We still haven't reached 100 percent risk-based 
funding. This amendment, however, is an improvement over current law, 
an improvement over the bill before us today.
  I would like to be able to report to the 9/11 Commission that we as a 
Senate did more than simply debate the

[[Page S2585]]

Commission's findings. We ought to be able to tell them we voted to 
give more resources to the people, cities, and States that need more 
protection. They worked very hard to hammer out the Commission report, 
and I believe it is fair to say that the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg 
amendment will do just that. I encourage my colleagues to support it.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 342 to Amendment No. 275

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
pending amendment be set aside, and I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for herself, Mr. 
     Stevens, Mr. Voinovich, and Mr. Warner, proposes an amendment 
     numbered 342 to amendment No. 275.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, 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:


                           amendment no. 342

    (Purpose: To provide certain employment rights and an employee 
  engagement mechanism for passenger and property screeners, and for 
                            other purposes)

       Strike section 803 (relating to Transportation Security 
     Administration personnel management) and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 803. EMPLOYEE RIGHTS AND ENGAGEMENT MECHANISM FOR 
                   PASSENGER AND PROPERTY SCREENERS.

       (a) Appeal Rights; Engagement Mechanism for Workplace 
     Issues; Pay for Performance; Union Membership.--
       (1) In general.--Section 111(d) of the Aviation and 
     Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 44935 note) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Notwithstanding'' and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in section 883 of the 
     Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) and paragraphs 
     (2) through (5), notwithstanding''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Right to appeal adverse action.--An individual 
     employed or appointed to carry out the screening functions of 
     the Administrator under section 44901 of title 49, United 
     States Code, may submit an appeal of an adverse action 
     covered by section 7512 of title 5, United States Code, and 
     finalized after the date of the enactment of Improving 
     America's Security Act of 2007, to the Merit Systems 
     Protection Board and may seek judicial review of any 
     resulting orders or decisions of the Merit Systems Protection 
     Board.
       ``(3) Employee engagement mechanism for addressing 
     workplace issues.--At every airport at which the 
     Transportation Security Administration screens passengers and 
     property under section 44901 of title 49, United States Code, 
     the Administrator shall provide a collaborative, integrated 
     employee engagement mechanism to address workplace issues.
       ``(4) Pay for performance.--The Administrator shall 
     establish a system to ensure that an individual described in 
     paragraph (2) is compensated at a level that reflects the 
     performance of such individual rather than the seniority of 
     such individual.
       ``(5) Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit an individual described in paragraph 
     (2) from joining a labor organization.''.
       (2) Conforming amendments.--Section 111(d)(1) of such Act, 
     as redesignated by paragraph (1)(A), is amended--
       (A) by striking ``Under Secretary of Transportation for 
     Security'' and inserting ``Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration''; and
       (B) by striking ``Under Secretary'' each place it appears 
     and inserting ``Administrator''.
       (b) Whistleblower Protections.--Section 883 of the Homeland 
     Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 463) is amended, in the matter 
     preceding paragraph (1), by inserting ``, or section 111(d) 
     of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (49 U.S.C. 
     44935 note),'' after ``this Act''.
       (c) Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the 
     Transportation Security Administration and the Comptroller 
     General of the United States shall each submit an independent 
     report to Congress that contains an assessment of employment 
     matters at the Transportation Security Administration, 
     including the implementation of this section.

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, because I know the Senator from South 
Carolina is waiting to speak, I will not go into any detail about this 
amendment, but I did want to file it so that my colleagues have a 
chance to look it over, overnight.
  This amendment is an attempt to reach a middle ground on the issue of 
rights for TSA employees. It provides that TSA employees may join a 
union; may have a pay-for-performance system; will have the right to 
appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board any adverse employment 
actions, such as demotions or firings, so they would have the same 
rights in that regard as other Federal employees; and it would give 
them explicit protections under the Whistleblowers Protection Act. It 
also calls for a review in 1 year's time of the personnel system to see 
if further changes are needed, and it asks GAG to evaluate the system.
  This amendment is cosponsored by Senator Stevens, Senator Voinovich, 
and Senator Warner at this point.
  Again, this is an attempt to find a middle ground on the TSA issue. 
The TSA employees do a terrific job working very hard to protect us. I 
believe the current law does not afford them the kind of workplace 
protections they deserve. Yet we want to preserve the flexibility of 
the TSA to be able to move people, to deploy them, to respond to 
imminent threats, new intelligence, or any sort of emergency situation. 
I believe this amendment would achieve that goal.
  I will be talking about the amendment in more depth tomorrow.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I ask that the Senator from 
South Carolina be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 316

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I know Senator Collins wants to put 
security first in this bill, and I am looking forward to seeing her 
compromise amendment, but I am standing today to speak on the ongoing 
efforts by my Democratic colleagues to force the Transportation 
Security Administration--these are the folks who guard our airports 
today--to collectively bargain with labor unions on the decisions they 
make.
  The Senator from Missouri, Senator McCaskill, is offering an 
amendment that I consider very dangerous. I wish to make sure my 
colleagues understand all that is at stake.
  First, this debate is about one thing and one thing only: whether 
Congress believes that our airport security agency--what we refer to as 
TSA--should have to negotiate with unions before it can carry out 
decisions that will save American lives. That is what this debate is 
about. The McCaskill amendment will change current law to force our 
airport security agency to negotiate with unions. The DeMint amendment 
will protect current law, which makes security TSA's top priority.
  The security implications of this policy are becoming clear, and that 
is why there is an effort by my Democratic colleagues to cloud the 
issue. Rather than admitting that collective bargaining is a labor 
union initiative, not a 9/11 Commission recommendation, my Democratic 
colleagues are now trying to paint it as proworker and prosecurity. 
This is extremely disappointing because the truth is that the McCaskill 
amendment is prounion and it weakens security.
  When you boil it down, the McCaskill amendment will force airport 
security workers or the airport security agency, TSA, to bargain with 
labor unions before they make security decisions. Let me say that 
again. The Transportation Security Agency will have to bargain with 
labor unions before they make security decisions.
  This is an earmark for big labor that comes at the expense of 
homeland security. I wish to go through the arguments offered by the 
other side and make sure everybody understands why they are misguided.
  First, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will 
prevent TSA screeners from going on strike and bargaining for higher 
pay. But the truth is that screeners could not strike anyway because 
the law prohibits Federal employees from striking. In addition, 
prohibiting bargaining for pay is also meaningless, since the 
Department of Homeland Security pay system does not allow bargaining 
now. So on this point, the other side is simply trying to cloud the 
issue and mask their union earmark with meaningless rhetoric.
  Second, my colleagues say their collective bargaining amendment will 
create new workforce protections for security screeners. But the truth 
is, these

[[Page S2586]]

benefits already exist. Workers already have whistleblower protection 
through a memorandum of understanding with the Office of Special 
Counsel. Workers already have protection against discrimination through 
the alternative resolution of conflict program. Workers already have 
due process protections against disciplinary actions that are more 
efficient than the protections offered to other Federal employees.
  Madam President, again, we are talking about the collective 
bargaining amendment. I was pointing out the protections that current 
TSA workers have. They have whistleblower protection, protection 
against discrimination, and they already have due process protections 
against disciplinary action that is more efficient than the protections 
offered by Federal workers.
  Security screeners already have the right to appeal adverse actions 
to TSA's Disciplinary Review Board, which provides due process 
equivalent to that available to other Federal employees.
  Workers already enjoy access to the Rehabilitation Act, except where 
Congress has specified that security job functions require certain 
aptitudes and physical abilities.
  So all of these proworker provisions are redundant and meaningless in 
any amendment to current law. They are only being offered to mask the 
true goal of the amendment, which is to force TSA to bargain with 
unions on their security decisions.
  The other side also likes to say there are high attrition rates at 
TSA and that collective bargaining would stabilize the workforce. I am 
afraid this is also false. Before 9/11, when airport security was under 
collective bargaining, attrition rates were as high as 400 percent at 
some airports. Now the voluntary attrition rate for full-time employees 
is down to 12.6 percent, and it is falling. This is not only 
significantly lower than pre-9/11 levels, but it is also lower than the 
attrition rates for the private sector as a whole and lower than the 
Federal Government as a whole. So my colleagues must understand that 
these are good jobs, attrition is low and falling, and attrition is not 
a valid reason to create collective bargaining.
  It is also important that my colleagues understand how the collective 
bargaining amendment will weaken our homeland security, which is the 
priority of the 9/11 Commission bill.
  First, the amendment creates a security trigger that will allow TSA 
to turn collective bargain on and off. This acknowledges that 
collective bargaining weakens security. I wish to repeat so my 
colleagues understand my Democratic colleagues agree that collective 
bargaining reduces security, and they feel obligated to offer a way to 
bypass it.
  But this so-called trigger for emergencies only makes the problem of 
collective bargaining worse. The language defining emergencies and 
newly imminent threats is so vague it will take an army of lawyers to 
determine whether each circumstance meets the definition. This will 
hurt our security and force TSA to be reactive and slow in its efforts 
to prevent future attacks.
  If my colleagues need proof that there will be wide disagreement as 
to when the security trigger can be used, they only need to hear the 
comments made by the sponsor of this amendment. When I asked if the 
current ongoing global war on terror would be considered an emergency 
under the amendment, the Senator from Missouri said it would not. If 
TSA cannot use the war on terror as a reason to protect Americans from 
al-Qaida and other terrorists on a daily basis, under what circumstance 
can it use this flexibility?
  This underscores the issue that lies at the heart of this debate. On 
one side, there are those who believe we should always be on alert and 
that we must treat every person and every bag going through our 
airports as a potential threat. On the other side, there are those who 
believe we are not under constant threat and we can simply turn on and 
off our ability to prevent future attacks. That is the real 
disagreement because we all seem to agree collective bargaining weakens 
security.

  In addition to allowing our security to be switched on and off by 
unions, the McCaskill amendment creates all the same problems as full-
blown collective bargaining.
  First, it still forces TSA to sign huge collective bargaining 
contracts, such as Customs and Border Patrol have now, and it could 
mean hundreds of separate contracts at airports across the country. 
Instead of streamlining security, it will create complex guidelines 
that make it harder to share and shift resources between airports as 
threats emerge.
  Second, it still forces TSA to set up a huge new bureaucracy for 
collective bargaining, putting new layers of redtape ahead of security 
and redirecting resources away from security and toward labor 
management. This new bureaucracy will cost TSA at least $160 million 
over the next year, forcing it to take 3,500 screeners off security 
checkpoints and doubling the wait time for passengers.
  Third, it still forces TSA to terminate its pay-for-performance 
system that currently rewards screeners for their proficiency rather 
than their seniority. This will only reduce TSA's ability to maintain a 
qualified workforce.
  Fourth, it still forces TSA to share sensitive security information 
with unions, compromising air travel security. The amendment claims to 
protect ``properly classified'' information, but it doesn't address 
other types of sensitive information, such as the emergency plans for 
our airports.
  This brings me back to my original point. This debate is about 
collective bargaining and whether it makes us more or less secure. All 
the talk about worker benefits and workplace protections and security 
triggers is meant to cloud the issue and prevent Senators from being 
accountable for their votes. This collective bargaining proposal has 
nothing to do with preventing another 9/11. In fact, it could increase 
the chance of another such attack, and my colleagues should consider 
that before they vote.
  There are only two reasons to vote for the McCaskill amendment: 
either political payback or out of political fear. I hope my colleagues 
will not act on either. Democrats should not pay back unions at the 
expense of our security, and we should not be afraid to stand up 
against union bosses so we can keep America safe.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the McCaskill amendment.
  It will not only weaken our security, it will also kill this bill. 
The President will veto it and the Senate will sustain his veto. So 
that leaves the other side of the aisle with a clear choice. They can 
either have a political showdown with the President over an earmark for 
labor unions or they can take this provision out of the bill and make 
some progress on our security agenda.
  The DeMint amendment protects American security. The McCaskill 
amendment protects unions.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________