[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15565-15584]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2360, which the clerk will 
report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 2360) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for

[[Page 15566]]

     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other 
     purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid (for Murray) amendment No. 1129, to provide emergency 
     supplemental funds for medical services provided by the 
     Veterans Health Administration for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2005.
       Collins amendment No. 1142, to provide for homeland 
     security grant coordination and simplification.
       Feinstein amendment No. 1215 (to amendment No. 1142), to 
     improve the allocation of grants through the Department of 
     Homeland Security.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.


                           Amendment No. 1215

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise to call up amendment No. 1215.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That amendment is currently 
pending.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, this amendment is offered on behalf of the Senator 
from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, and myself. It is identical to the Homeland 
Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. That is S. 1013.
  I am very pleased to be joined not only by my colleague from Texas 
but, as well, by Senators Boxer, Hutchison, Kerry, Martinez, Schumer, 
Clinton, Corzine, Kennedy, Lautenberg, and Nelson of Florida. And, Mr. 
President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Mikulski to the list 
of cosponsors.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a great deal has been said about how 
homeland security dollars should be allocated. I think it is pretty 
clear that the American people, and certainly major opinionmakers such 
as major newspaper editorials, major mayors and major Governors, 
believe it is time our Nation adopt risk-based analysis to guide 
critical resource allocation of homeland security efforts.
  This legislation will do exactly that. The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment 
is extremely simple in approach. Its key language, which appears at its 
beginning, is clear. Let me quote it:

       The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that 
     homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment 
     of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum 
     extent practicable.

  This legislation will ensure that these priorities are set, and set 
according to analysis of risk and threat.
  This bill accomplishes this through five basic mechanisms.
  First, the law requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 
Security to allocate grants based on risk. The legislation will mandate 
that funding decisions be designed according to an assessment of risk. 
This is a key element of the law, which makes this clear in its very 
first section, entitled ``Risk-Based Funding For Homeland Security,'' 
which reads--and I want to repeat it--

       The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that 
     covered grants are allocated based on an assessment of 
     threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent 
     possible.

  The bill defines ``covered grants'' as including the four major first 
responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland 
Security. That is: First, the State Homeland Security Grant Program; 
second, the Urban Area Security Initiative; third, the Law Enforcement 
Terrorism Prevention Program; and, fourth, the Citizens Corps Program.
  In addition to these four core grant programs, the legislation also 
covers grants ``provided by the Department for improving homeland 
security,'' including grants for seaport and airport security.
  The bottom line is that if Federal funds are going to be distributed 
to improve first responders' ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond 
to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds 
should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. Al-
Qaida and its allies do not attack based on a formula. This bill 
rejects the formula approach in favor of a framework that is flexible 
and risk focused.
  Second, the legislation requires that covered grants be designed to 
meet ``essential capabilities.'' ``Essential capabilities'' is a 
concept defined in this law. It is what we get for the money spent: The 
ability to meet the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and 
diminishing the consequences by effective response.
  Third, the bill requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to 
where they are needed. States should not hold Federal funds back from 
where they are most needed. This bill will ensure that States quickly 
and effectively move the funds through to the location.
  And, fourth, the bill addresses the small State minimum issue. The 
underlying bill requires each State to get .75 percent of the grant 
funding. Now, what does that mean? That means that 37.5 percent of the 
funds go on a formula basis to areas that might not have risk, threat, 
or vulnerability. For instance, under the current appropriations bill, 
of the $1.918 billion appropriated, $548 million is taken right off the 
top, allocated to States regardless of whether they are vulnerable, 
whether they have risk, or whether they have threat. Thus, that $548 
million is not available to meet risk.
  This legislation will significantly reduce this large set-aside. It 
will reduce it from 37.5 percent to the .25 percent. Now, I must admit 
I am uncomfortable even with the .25 percent minimum and would prefer 
to eliminate any impediment to risk-based funding. I believe it is the 
right thing to do. I would believe this regardless of what State I came 
from. We set up a huge Department of Homeland Security and have given 
them the basis and the ability to do the analyses that are required and 
the intelligence that has moved in to determine what is vulnerable, 
where it is, where the threats are, and what the risks are. And these 
are going to be ever changing. But I understand the realities of the 
Senate, so we decided to track what the President requested in his 
budget.
  In this post-Cold-War world of asymmetric threat, there are two 
fundamental understandings which apply to efforts to make our Nation 
more secure against a terrorist attack.
  The first understanding is that predicting what terrorists will do 
requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that even with the 
best intelligence we will never know exactly how, when, and where 
terrorists will strike. The best we can do is to adequately assess 
risks and threats and make predictions.
  The second understanding is that our defense resources are not 
infinite. The sum total of money, time, and personnel that can be 
devoted to homeland security is limited.
  Together these two understandings define the task for our Nation: We 
must accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist 
attacks, measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, 
and then divide up resources based on that assessment, not based on 
some arbitrary formula that will exist regardless of what kind of 
threat or vulnerability may emerge in the future.
  The 9/11 Commission agrees with us, finding that ``nothing has been 
harder for officials--executive or legislative--than to set priorities, 
making hard choices in allocating limited resources.'' The Commission 
concluded:

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

  The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment is the only amendment that clearly 
does what the 9/11 Commission has recommended.
  The New York Times has agreed. In an editorial entitled ``Real 
Security, or Politics as Usual?'' the Times wrote:

       Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is 
     not parochialism; it is defending America.

  We think that last week's tragic events in London underscore the 
point. The effectiveness of the British first response to these 
terrible attacks illustrates that they put their resources where the 
risks were: In London, not in some remote community, but where they 
knew the terrorists were most likely to attack.
  Despite all recommendations, we find again and again that scarce 
resources

[[Page 15567]]

are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For 
instance, a small State minimum in the Collins amendment is designed to 
ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, 
regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, a 
State such as Wyoming gets $27.80 per capita in funding, while New York 
and California get $15.54 and $8.05, respectively.
  The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department 
of Homeland Security inspector general report found that in the 
critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with 
the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.'' The result: 
``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.''
  Now, this is the IG of Homeland Security who is saying projects with 
low risk and vulnerability scores are currently being funded. Frankly 
and candidly, that is just plain wrong. It is a waste of money, and I 
think, to an extent, it enables--well, it really is a kind of deception 
because unless you can put your money where the intelligence indicates 
and the assessments indicate there is threat and risk, you are not 
protecting America.
  A recently issued joint report from the Center for Security Studies 
and the Heritage Foundation found that there is:

     no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and 
     divorces from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources 
     available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting 
     the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set 
     priorities.

  That is what we are trying to do here. This amendment, and the bill 
upon which it is based, builds on efforts last year by Representatives 
Cox and Turner, the chair and ranking member respectively of the other 
body's Homeland Security Committee. That effort passed the House of 
Representatives as part of the intelligence reform bill but was dropped 
at conference. Our amendment is similar to this House bill.
  I understand and appreciate the efforts made by Senators Collins and 
Lieberman to craft the bill now before us. I applaud their leadership 
in this area. The Collins-Lieberman bill, while it purports to be risk 
based, is actually not. It incorporates complex formulae with a 
preordained list of factors which approximate what is believed to be 
the risk. Candidly, I don't think that works for the following reasons.
  First, the key to responding to al-Qaida and similar organizations is 
flexibility. It is not a frozen formula. Al-Qaida doesn't make 
decisions based on formula. While today it may seem obvious that mass 
transit or ports are obvious targets, tomorrow they may not be. 
Hopefully our intelligence community will be increasingly able to 
ferret out our terrorist adversaries and our analysts will be better at 
understanding and predicting their behavior. What are today's targets 
could change and change yet again. Building a formula mechanism based 
on our best guess about what al-Qaida will do is simply not good 
policy.
  Secondly, we created the Department of Homeland Security primarily to 
do exactly what this legislation calls for. The first mission statement 
for the Department stated:

       [The Department will] identify and understand threats, 
     assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and 
     disseminate timely information to our homeland security 
     partners and the American public.

  This is what the Department is supposed to do. It cannot be done by 
arbitrary formula. It can only be done listening to intelligence 
analysts, engaging in flexible interpretation, and being willing to 
move the money where the risks show up to be. That is important to do, 
and it should be important whether you are from a small State, a 
middle-sized State, or a large State. The money should go where the 
problems are.
  This is exactly what President Bush said in announcing the creation 
of the Department. He stated:

       This new department will bring together the best 
     intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to 
     terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect 
     America.

  He didn't talk about an arbitrary formula. He said, the Department 
will bring together the best intelligence information so that 
flexibility becomes the watchword of the day, and money can go where it 
is truly needed.
  Senator Lieberman was a leader in this effort, and we all worked with 
him to create the Department of Homeland Security. In my view, the 
biggest selling point for this new Department was, as the President 
said, that for the first time, we would have a place in the Government 
that would map threats against vulnerability and thus allocate our 
defenses in an effective, efficient way. The Department of Homeland 
Security can be seen as a department of risk analysis. That is what it 
should be doing. So it is ironic that having provided the authority and 
responsibility to do this, the Congress then handcuffs the Secretary by 
restricting these resources based on geography, politics, and parochial 
interests. Let's let the Secretary do the job we gave him.
  Third, in addition to creating the Department of Homeland Security, 
the Congress, again with the leadership of Senators Collins and 
Lieberman, reorganized the intelligence community. The purpose of this 
task was to ensure that the most important ingredient in risk 
analysis--good intelligence--was enough to keep America safe. So there 
is an irony that having gone to such trouble to improve the 
intelligence community, we are prepared to pass legislation which for a 
large percentage of funds will make intelligence irrelevant. All they 
need is a map, a census, and a list of important places in each State. 
That makes no sense to me.
  I mentioned the difference in funding levels and amounts subject to 
risk. Last week the Congressional Research Service issued an analysis 
of the underlying appropriations bill, the Collins amendment, and the 
Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. The results are startling. If we assume 
that the base amount of Homeland Security grant funding contained in 
the appropriations bill becomes law, that means the total amount 
available for these programs will be $1.918 billion. The underlying 
bill would allocate a considerable amount under the existing small 
State minimum framework, $579.2 million, leaving $1.3 billion to be 
allocated through a risk assessment process.
  If the Collins-Lieberman amendment is adopted, $762 million will be 
allocated according to the formula--not based on risk, not based on 
threat, not based on risk analysis, not based on vulnerability, but 
simply on population and geographical distribution. That leaves even 
less to be allocated based on risk, only $1.155 billion. In other 
words, the Collins-Lieberman amendment reduces the risk-based funding 
in the underlying bill by nearly $150 million. If this amendment is 
adopted, only $251.2 million will be allocated based on the .25 small 
State minimum, leaving $1.66 billion for risk-based allocation.
  Here is the bottom line: Put another way, under the underlying bill, 
only 70 percent of available funds are allocated based on risk. If the 
Collins-Lieberman approach is adopted, that drops to 60 percent; under 
the approach embodied in Cornyn-Feinstein, 87 percent of funding to 
risk. So between the two amendments, our amendment, 87 percent of 
funding to risk, Collins- Lieberman, 60 percent, and the underlying 
bill, 70 percent. The choice is clear.
  What is the bottom line? The bottom line is, our Nation faces danger. 
We have a limited amount of resources available to defend ourselves. 
Those resources must and should be targeted. They should be targeted to 
where they can do the most good and where the risk actually is. That is 
the simple question which faces us today. How can we best protect our 
country? I believe the best way to protect America is to let the 
Secretary of Homeland Security do the job we appointed him to do: match 
resources to risk, using the best available intelligence analysis. That 
is the only way to safety. That is the only way to reassure our people, 
should there be a catastrophic event, that we have put the money in the 
right places. Any arbitrary formula doesn't do this.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the High 
Threat Joint Working Group on Homeland Security. This is a group of 
large

[[Page 15568]]

cities that has banded together. The letter is in support of our 
amendment. It is the city of Anaheim in California; city of Baltimore 
in Maryland; city of Baton Rouge in Louisiana; city of Boston in 
Massachusetts; the city of Charlotte in North Carolina; the city of 
Chicago in Illinois; the city of Cleveland in Ohio; the city of 
Columbus in Ohio; the city of Dallas in Texas; Jacksonville in Florida; 
the city of Kansas City, MO; the city of Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, 
CA; Miami, FL; New York in New York; Newark in New Jersey; Oakland in 
California; Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; city of San Diego in 
California; the city of San Francisco in California; the city of San 
Jose in California; and the city of Santa Ana.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         High-Threat City Joint Working Group on Homeland 
           Security,
                                                    July 11, 2005.
     Hon. Bill Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harry Reid,
     Minority Leader. U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader and Minority Leader: As cities on the 
     front line of the war on terrorism, we are writing to express 
     our support for S. 1013, the ``Homeland Security FORWARD 
     Funding Act of 2005'', introduced by Senators Feinstein and 
     Cornyn, which targets first responder funds to areas of 
     highest risk and highest threat throughout the nation and to 
     support homeland security funding for state and local 
     governments at least at last year's level. The recent events 
     in London underline the importance of homeland funding for 
     state and local governments.
       The Feinstein-Cornyn legislation most closely tracks the 
     recommendations of both the 9/11 Commission and the 
     Administration in supporting the principle that homeland 
     security funds should be allocated solely on the basis of 
     risk of terrorism. According to the Congressional Research 
     Service, S. 1013 would increase the amount of money 
     distributed on threat to 87% of the funds, compared to only 
     60% distributed based on threat under S. 21.
       S. 1013 also maintains the critical partnership between the 
     federal government, states and the nation's highest risk 
     areas by maintaining the Urban Area Security Initiative 
     (UASI) program. These UASI regions have for several years 
     been aggressively working to implement comprehensive plans 
     for terrorism prevention and preparedness approved by their 
     States and DHS. Maintaining the UASI program will preserve 
     and sustain the substantial planning, long-term projects, and 
     regional decision-making processes underway.
       The homeland security bill as reported by the Senate 
     Appropriations Committee would cut homeland security funding 
     to state and local governments by almost a half billion 
     dollars, $467 million less than FY 05. Please restore this 
     funding.
       We again commend you on your efforts to increase the amount 
     of homeland security funds distributed based on threat, 
     vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack.
           Sincerely,
       City of Anaheim, California.
       City of Baltimore, Maryland.
       City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
       City of Boston, Massachusetts.
       City of Charlotte, North Carolina.
       City of Chicago, Illinois.
       City of Cleveland, Ohio.
       City of Columbus, Ohio.
       City of Dallas, Texas.
       City of Jacksonville, Florida.
       City of Kansas City, Missouri.
       City of Long Beach, California.
       City of Los Angeles, California.
       City of Miami, Florida.
       City of New York, New York.
       City of Newark, New Jersey.
       City of Oakland, California.
       City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
       City of San Diego, California.
       City of San Francisco, California.
       City of San Jose, California.
       City of Santa Ana, California.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a 
letter addressed to Senator Cornyn and me, signed by Governor Rick 
Perry of Texas and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. What 
they ask is that we follow the 9/11 Commission report recommendation to 
better allocate Federal resources based on vulnerability.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                     May 12, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senator, 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 2005 will provide much needed changes to these 
     programs by better recognizing the risks and vulnerabilities 
     faced by larger states such as California 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;
       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 of coastland, 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;
       Continues the central role of states, building on existing 
     systems that effectively coordinate planning efforts and 
     insure accountability;
       Allows for limited regional applications from existing UASI 
     cities or other urban areas with at least a population of at 
     least 500,000; 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,
     Rick Perry,
       Governor of Texas.
     Arnold Schwarzenegger,
       Governor of California.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Office of the Mayor,


                               City & County of San Francisco,

                                  San Francisco, CA, May 11, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I want to commend you for your 
     continued leadership on homeland security and express the 
     City's support for your ``Homeland Security FORWARD Funding 
     Act of 2005'', which prioritizes threat and risk and improves 
     the ability of local first responders to deter, prevent and 
     respond to terrorism.
       Your proposal goes the furthest in supporting both the 9/11 
     and Administration's principle that homeland security funds 
     should be allocated on the basis of risk of terrorism. The 
     bill corrects the major formula imbalance that exists in 
     current law by reducing the current mandatory state minimums 
     from 0.75 percent to 0.25 percent. The current inequity has 
     resulted in, since 9/11, California receiving $5 per capita 
     compared to Wyoming collecting $38 per capita.
       Your bill also reaffirms the federal government's critical 
     partnership with the nation's areas that are at highest risk 
     of terrorist attack by grandfathering existing high-threat 
     regions under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). The 
     City and County of San Francisco has proudly, under its UASI 
     grant, aggressively been leading the Bay Area in a ten county 
     regional plan to help protect and strengthen the region 
     against terrorist attacks.
       I want to again express my deep appreciation for you and 
     your staffs outreach to San Francisco and other stakeholders 
     throughout California who are on the front lines of the war 
     on terrorism. Thank you for your important efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Gavin Newsom,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Mayor 
Richard Daley of Chicago be printed in the Record.

[[Page 15569]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              Office of the Mayor,


                                              City of Chicago,

                                       Chicago, IL, June 28, 2005.
     Hon. John Cornyn,
     Hon. Diane Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Cornyn and Feinstein: I am writing to applaud 
     your collective efforts to develop the Homeland Security 
     FORWARD Funding Act of 2005. As a high threat urban area, and 
     a UASI grantee, the Chicago region is on the front lines of 
     our country's war on terrorism and I believe that this 
     legislation begins to more appropriately target first 
     responder funds to areas of highest risk and highest threat 
     throughout the nation.
       Your proposal most closely tracks the recommendations of 
     the 9/11 Commission that call for funding to be distributed 
     based on risk. By reducing the small state minimum from .75 
     percent in current law to .25 percent, your proposal more 
     equitably distributes critical funds to states and localities 
     that are truly at the highest risk of terrorism. Your 
     legislation also recognizes the importance of the work that 
     has been done at the state and local government level since 
     September 11, 2001, by reaffirming the regional approach to 
     terrorism preparedness and prevention and grandfathering 
     existing UASIs. The City of Chicago has worked closely with 
     our regional partners and the State of Illinois to develop a 
     coordinated homeland security plan and we welcome the 
     opportunity to build on that plan.
       I again thank you for your bipartisan leadership in 
     developing this important legislation and look forward to 
     working with you in the future to move this bill forward.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Richard M. Daley,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the League 
of California Cities be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  League of California Cities,

                                      Sacramento, CA, May 4, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: I am writing to express the League 
     of California Cities' (League) support and appreciation for 
     your leadership on homeland security legislation that would 
     allocate homeland security grants on the basis of risk of 
     terrorism. Your staff's work with our Washington staff is 
     very encouraging and we hope to continue this partnership.
       California cities, together with the State and other 
     stakeholders throughout California, have advocated in favor 
     of bringing down the mandatory state minimums. Your draft 
     bill significantly corrects the major formula imbalance that 
     exists in current law by reducing the current state minimums 
     from 0.75% to 0.25%. We would ask that you consider going the 
     extra step and remove minimums altogether, but if there must 
     be a State minimum, we urge that your bill keep it as small 
     as possible. In addition, your bill clarifies the regional 
     approach taken in both the pending Senate and House bills (S. 
     21 and H.R. 1544).
       California cities are on the front lines of the war on 
     terrorism and your legislation is very important to us. We 
     look forward to continuing to work closely with you as you 
     finalize your proposal, as well as providing support for your 
     legislation upon introduction. Thank you for your important 
     efforts.
           Sincerely,
                                             Christopher McKenzie.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Laura 
Miller, the mayor of Dallas, TX, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               City of Dallas,

                                          Dallas, TX, May 5, 2005.
     Senator John Cornyn,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Cornyn: I would like to thank you for your 
     work to improve Homeland Security programs. This legislation 
     you are introducing addresses many of the City of Dallas' 
     concerns with the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and 
     Homeland Security Grant programs. I am appreciative of your 
     effort to include certain measures that will allow the city 
     to receive an equitable share of Homeland Security funding 
     and spend it as we see appropriate. Your legislation is the 
     one which directs maximum funding to states and regions based 
     on risk. This change is critical.
       The Dallas UASI has received approximately $35 million in 
     the last three years from the UASI program. This funding has 
     been used to enhance the metro area's first responder 
     capabilities to protect our citizens and critical 
     infrastructure. Unlike other proposed legislation, this new 
     bill allows for cities that are currently receiving Homeland 
     Security funds through the UASI program to be grandfathered 
     for future UASI funding. There are no provisions in the 
     legislation before the House or Senate to maintain current 
     UASI planning and the city greatly appreciates your concern 
     for our needs. The other bills could require a complete 
     revision of the approaches and strategies we have adopted.
       Your proposal gives local governments a degree certainty 
     and ensures that we can make long-term plans. It also 
     includes provisions to ensure that state money will be passed 
     down to local governments quickly and efficiently. Your 
     legislation is the only measure that ensures that federal 
     funds reach first responders more expeditiously.
       Thank you for your work this important legislation and for 
     including these important provisions. It will help the City 
     of Dallas and the nation as a whole to prepare.
       Cordially,
                                                     Laura Miller,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the mayor 
of Long Beach, CA, Beverly O'Neill, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           City of Long Beach,

                                    Long Beach, CA, June 28, 2005.
     Hon. Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: On behalf of the City of Long 
     Beach, I am pleased to support your Homeland Security FORWARD 
     Funding Act of 2005 (S. 1013). This bill would target scarce 
     Homeland Security dollars to areas of highest threat and 
     need, rather than maintaining the current system that 
     allocates dollars through a non-risk based minimum guarantee 
     formula. This legislation will truly benefit urban areas, 
     such as the City of Long Beach, that have a high terrorist 
     risk by targeting federal funds to help mitigate potential 
     threats.
       The House has passed the Cox-Thompson Bill (H.R. 1544), 
     which is similar to S. 1013. While the City of Long Beach 
     supports the direction of H.R. 1544, we believe your 
     legislation is superior because it addresses two critical 
     local concerns.
       First, under the Cox-Thompson definition of an eligible 
     funding region, effective and proven governance structures 
     such as the Long Beach Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) 
     would no longer be eligible for federal Homeland Security 
     Funds. The member cities that comprise the Long Beach UASI 
     are Long Beach, Bellflower, Carson, Compton, Hawaiian 
     Gardens, Lakewood, Paramount, and Signal Hill, as well as the 
     County of Los Angeles. Long Beach is regarded as a model 
     because it has formed an effective partnership with its other 
     UASI member cities to implement the Department of Homeland 
     Security's regional approach to security needs. Under the 
     Cox-Thompson definition, this proven governance structure 
     would not be large enough to qualify for funding. Senate Bill 
     1013 would grandfather-in existing UASI structures, allowing 
     our effective model to continue to qualify for Homeland 
     Security funding.
       Second, the Cox-Thompson bill would require a local match 
     of 25 percent after the first two grant years. This would 
     create a tremendous burden on cities across the nation that 
     are already struggling with difficult financial 
     circumstances. By directing cities to become more secure 
     while only providing 75 percent of the resources, the Federal 
     government would be creating an unfunded mandate that cities 
     would not be able to meet without reducing core services to 
     their communities. Long Beach already devotes more than 60 
     percent of its General Fund budget to public safety such as 
     Police and Fire first response, which helps contribute to 
     national Homeland Security goals. Senate Bill 1013 would 
     ensure that Homeland Security funding remains 100 percent 
     grants, and that cities would not have to sacrifice local 
     service to their communities in order to fund national 
     Homeland Security needs.
       Finally, Long Beach is concerned with the dwindling 
     Homeland Security resources dedicated to state and local 
     governments. Funding for state and local agencies through the 
     Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
     Preparedness (SLGCP) decreased this year for the second 
     straight year by 10.5 percent or $420 million. Over the past 
     two years, there has been an overall decrease of 15 percent 
     and $627 million. Last year, the Long Beach UASI experienced 
     a 40 percent decrease in UASI funding from $12 million to 
     $7.3 million.
       For the next fiscal year, both the Senate and House 
     Appropriations Committees are contemplating reduced funding 
     on the premise that state and local governments have not 
     spent prior year's funding. The Senate Appropriations 
     Committee recommends reducing funding by 12.5 percent, while 
     the House Appropriations Committee recommends reducing 
     funding by 7.5 percent. Many of the delays In spending are 
     not due to lack of need; rather they are due to the multi-
     leveled approval process, the time-consuming purchasing 
     requirements, and the

[[Page 15570]]

     low-supply of sought-after equipment and other delays. For 
     example, the Long Beach UASI received its UASI 05 allocation 
     in December, yet as of the end of June, the authority to 
     begin spending it has not yet been received.
       In regards to funding, one of the City's biggest issues is 
     providing Homeland Security resources for staff, particularly 
     to support training requirements, exercise requirements, 
     planning requirements, inventory management, as well as 
     enhanced capabilities. To put this into perspective, the 
     recent interagency security exercise, Operation Lead Shield, 
     cost Long Beach approximately $100,000 in non-UASI refundable 
     staffing costs. Costs for ongoing maintenance will also 
     become a growing concern as the contracts that were funded 
     for the life of a particular grant are now coming to a close 
     with the costs being born by the City's General Fund.
       We applaud you and your colleagues for proposing bold new 
     changes to how Homeland Security funds are distributed. 
     Senate Bill 1013 provides a rational blueprint for the 
     effective risk-based distribution of Homeland Security 
     dollars, while remaining cognizant of the needs of cities 
     that rely on this important grant program. We hope you are 
     also able to protect the current level of funding for these 
     important programs, and work on the funding issues mentioned 
     above.
           Cordially,
                                                  Beverly O'Neill,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All these letters are in support of this amendment 
which earmarks money based on intelligence analysis of risk and threat.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Hampshire is 
recognized.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, just to bring my colleagues up to speed as 
to what the hoped-for game plan is, there has now been agreement 
reached between the parties which will allow us at 11:30 to turn from 
the debate on the formula proposal, offered by Senators Collins and 
Feinstein, to the issue of the veterans amendment offered by Senator 
Reid on behalf of Senator Murray. We will debate that for half an hour 
equally divided. Then we will vote on that at 12:00. Then we will 
return to the debate on the Collins amendment and the Feinstein 
amendment, and that debate will continue, so that the entire debate 
will encompass approximately 3 hours which would mean it would wrap up 
somewhere around 3:30, 3:45. At that point, there will be a window 
because we can't have a vote then due to outside circumstances. So 
there will be a window of an hour, an hour and 45 minutes, during which 
Members can bring amendments forward or, if they wish, during the 
debate time maybe come and be recognized to set these amendments aside 
for purposes of offering amendments.
  In any event, there will be hopefully two votes occurring somewhere 
around 5 o'clock. This evening there is a joint Senate event for 
families. That is where we stand. We haven't reached that agreement 
yet.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator will yield for a question, it is my 
understanding we are working on a unanimous consent request, and we 
hope to get it agreed to momentarily. To reiterate for my side of the 
aisle and yours, if you have a pending amendment on this bill, there is 
a window from about 3:30, 3:45 until 5 o'clock, if the UC is adopted, 
to come to the floor and speak to your amendment and have it pending or 
at least considered.
  I think what I am hearing from the chairman is what we would give as 
advice to all, and that is waiting until tomorrow or the next day is 
not the wisest course. There are too many pending amendments, and there 
is a lot to be done on this bill. This bill is urgent and is a 
priority. I think that is good advice to both sides of the aisle.
  Mr. GREGG. I think the assistant Democratic leader's counsel is very 
appropriate and hopefully will be listened to.
  The debate we have is a large State/small State debate over a 
formula. This is authorizing language being put on an appropriations 
bill, which we in the Appropriations Committee try to avoid. As a 
practical matter, this bill allocates funds. I hope Members will take a 
look at the allocation we did in this bill because this program has not 
been authorized.
  Our theory in this allocation process was to have a threat-based 
allocation. I feel very strongly that this whole bill has been 
redirected with the work of Senator Byrd--I note that this is his 
belief also--we reworked the bill to be a threat-based bill. We did it 
in the area of border security, weapons of mass destruction, and we did 
it in the area of this formula. We protected and grandfathered all the 
States so the States going through upgrades of trying to get their 
first responder house in order will not see a devastating cut in what 
they are receiving. Everything over the grandfathered amount 
essentially moves on the basis of threat. So the actual appropriation 
in the bill falls about halfway between the two theories being put 
forward here by the competing interests relative to how this formula 
should be designed on the authorizing side. I just note that for my 
colleagues' edification.
  At this time, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 today 
the Senate resume consideration of the Reid for Murray amendment 
regarding veterans health; provided further, that the time until 12 
noon be equally divided in the usual form, and that at noon the Senate 
proceed to a vote in relationship to the Murray amendment, with no 
second degrees in order prior to the vote. I further ask that the 
pending Feinstein-Cornyn amendment be modified in order to become a 
first-degree amendment. I further ask that the time for Senator 
Feinstein's statement until 11:30 be divided equally between Senator 
Feinstein or her designee, and Senator Collins or her designee to 
debate the Collins and Feinstein amendments concurrently; provided 
further, that at 2:15, there be an additional 90 minutes divided as 
stated above; finally, I ask that at 5 p.m. today the Senate proceed to 
a vote in relation to the Collins amendment, to be followed by a vote 
in relation to the Feinstein amendment, with no amendments in order to 
either amendment prior to the votes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I don't 
object, I only make two points, and one perhaps the Senator from 
California can help us clarify. Again, that is reiterating what the 
chairman has said. We urge Members who have pending amendments to be 
here in the neighborhood of 3:30 or 3:45 to call up their amendment and 
make sure they are pending on the bill, so we can keep this moving 
along. This is a very important bill. It is all the more compelling 
because of the events of last week.
  Second, relating to the Senator from New Jersey and how his time is 
going to be credited to this unanimous consent request, it is my 
understanding that the Senator from California has said that the time 
used by the Senator from New Jersey was to be taken from the time 
allocated to her amendment with Senator Cornyn; is that correct?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.
  Mr. DURBIN. Otherwise, I have no objection to this unanimous consent 
request.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senators.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I rise today to voice strong 
opposition to the amendment being offered by Senator Collins to this 
Homeland Security appropriations bill. It is the wrong approach at a 
critical time in the war on terror. Need any of us here be reminded 
that it wasn't Portsmouth, England, that was attacked last week? I will 
tell you that the odds are that it won't be Portsmouth, ME, that is 
going to be under terrorist threats or that it compares in any way to 
the most inviting targets in the country--one of

[[Page 15571]]

which is in the State of New Jersey, where 12 million people could be 
killed if there is a raid on the chemical plant that is very close to 
the New York border and within our State.
  Mr. President, I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. For 
the record, the Collins legislation didn't pass without dissent in the 
committee. I strongly opposed the Collins bill offered by the chairman 
in committee, and I strongly oppose it here as an amendment to this 
appropriations bill.
  The Collins amendment flies in the face of the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission. Everybody says they worked hard. As a matter of fact, 
Senator Collins was a leader in getting the legislation done to reform 
the intelligence operation. I commend her for that. But they are very 
clear in the 9/11 Commission report that distribution should be made on 
the basis of risk. And it also, by the way, defies the wishes of 
President Bush and Secretary Chertoff.
  The Commission stated in no uncertain terms that homeland security 
funding should be allocated on the basis of risk, not political pork.
  Unlike the Collins amendment, the underlying appropriations bill and 
the Feinstein amendment move toward the goal of more risk-based 
funding.
  I salute the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Gregg, and 
the ranking member, Senator Byrd, for their efforts to move us toward 
more risk-based funding in this appropriations bill. Their bill greatly 
improves the confusing status quo by allocating 70 percent of homeland 
security funding based on risk and threat. Very frankly, we ought to be 
at 100 percent, if we were consistent with the report produced by the 
9/11 Commission. I checked this again directly with former Governor 
Kean from New Jersey. He reaffirmed his belief that you ought to put 
the money where the risk is. But the Collins amendment before us today 
is a step backward, not forward. The Collins amendment would change the 
appropriations bill by reducing the amount of risk-based funding to 
just 60 percent.
  This is an affront to the 9/11 Commission. What they said about how 
homeland security funds should be distributed is clearly stated here. 
Their recommendation No. 25 said this:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.
       Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a 
     program for general revenue sharing.

  That is clear. They went on to make the point in very blunt language:

       Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.

  It is not just the 9/11 Commission that said that. Homeland Security 
Secretary Michael Chertoff has stated numerous times the need for 
homeland security funding should be based more on risks, threats, and 
vulnerabilities.
  This past Sunday on ``Meet the Press,'' Secretary Chertoff said:

       We have to be risk-based in our funding.

  He went on to define ``risk-based'' funding this way:

       It means we look not at the question of political 
     jurisdiction, we look at where the consequences would be 
     catastrophic, where the vulnerabilities would be, where the 
     threats are.

  He is right. We need to protect our Nation where the risks and 
vulnerabilities are. If we want to peel off pork, then we have to go to 
some other bill to do it. I am not saying these are casual programs 
that are being funded by a reduction in risk-based grants, but it is 
the wrong thing at the wrong time, and everybody knows that. We are all 
in a semistate of shock as a result of the bombing in London.
  Mr. President, 700 of my fellow New Jerseyans lost their lives on 
September 11, 2001. Families, in many cases, are ruined forever, with 
the lack of a daddy, a husband, a brother, a sister or a mother.
  Throughout that tragic day, people in northern New Jersey could see 
the smoke rising from the Trade Center, where many of our friends, 
neighbors, and loved ones worked. It could be seen from my house. The 
New York-New Jersey region bore the brunt of the attacks on 9/11, and 
it continues to be the area of our Nation that is most at risk. But I 
don't plead for this on a parochial basis. I plead for it for the 
safety of our country as a whole.
  In fact, the FBI determined that the 2-mile stretch in New Jersey, 
between the Port of Newark and Newark Airport, is the most at-risk area 
in the country for a terrorist attack.
  The New York Times recently reported that an attack on just one 
particular chemical plant in this area could kill or harm millions of 
people.
  I ask my colleagues to think about that. With the potential loss of 
life in the millions, this is no time for putting parochial interests 
before the security of the Nation.
  The tragic attacks in London only reinforce the need to protect the 
high-threat areas. As I said earlier, it is not Portsmouth, England, or 
Portsmouth, ME, that was attacked. That is not where the principal 
focus of the terrorist is. We have to protect our entire country, but 
there ought to be a system of priority that says this is the most 
important area. We should not casually dismiss an area that is one of 
the largest population centers of our country or of the world, in fact.
  Mr. President, I pose the question: How can we, in the wake of the 
London attacks, with all of the alerts that we have around the country, 
now move to take funding away from where the threats are? It makes no 
sense. We ought to have more funding, not less, and we ought to have it 
directly aimed at the area of highest risk.
  Under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Maine, 40 percent of 
homeland security funds will be distributed not based on risk, but 
simply distributed to every State and territory, regardless of the 
risks they face. The Congressional Research Service has analyzed how 
the Collins legislation would change the amount of funding going out 
based on risk under this bill. They concluded that the Collins approach 
would reduce risk-based funding by over $183 million--$183.53 million--
compared to the underlying appropriations bill.
  It is absolutely critical that the Senate reject the Collins 
amendment. In the wake of the London attacks, we need to show the 
American people we are serious about protecting the country and not 
just interested in another back-home project.
  In addition to opposing the amendment, I urge my colleagues to 
support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment. Our amendment moves 
us much closer to the goal of risk-based funding as called for by the 
9/11 Commission and the President of the United States.
  The issue before us is bigger than politics. We are talking about the 
best way to protect fellow Americans from another terrorist attack but 
also, in protecting our ability to function in the event of an attack, 
making sure we have the communications link and the transportation 
link. We ought to make certain that we pay attention to securing those 
areas that are most likely to be inviting targets for terrorism. This 
is not about regional rivalries. It is about protecting our most 
vulnerable communities.
  With our votes on these two amendments, we are going to decide 
whether we are going to follow the guidance of the 9/11 Commission or 
simply ignore their recommendations. I do not know how we do that. It 
is fairly simple. I urge my colleagues to reject the Collins approach 
and support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? The Senator from 
Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, it is my understanding that Senator 
Cornyn, who is the prime cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from 
California, wishes to go next. If he is not going to go next, I will be 
happy to speak on my time. But it was my understanding he wanted to 
speak first.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from California is 
recognized.

[[Page 15572]]


  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for her courtesy. It is my 
understanding we have 45 minutes this afternoon at 2:15 and Senator 
Cornyn will lead off at 2:15. I thank the Senator.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California for 
that clarification.
  Mr. President, the Collins-Lieberman amendment has picked up a number 
of cosponsors, so I want to bring my colleagues up to date by reading 
the full list of the cosponsors of the Collins- Lieberman amendment. 
They are as follows: Senators Voinovich, DeWine, Coburn, Akaka, Carper, 
Salazar, Coleman, Ben Nelson, Pryor, Snowe, and Dayton. I ask unanimous 
consent that all of those cosponsors be added to the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, my friend from California, as well as the 
Senator from New Jersey, have both referred to a memo the Congressional 
Research Service put together for Senator Lautenberg. First, let me say 
I have not seen this memo despite my staff repeatedly requesting a copy 
from Senator Lautenberg's office. The memo appears to have been widely 
distributed to the press but, unfortunately, the Senator has chosen not 
to share it with the two sponsors of the amendment.
  Why would that be? Perhaps it is because the last time my colleague 
from New Jersey asked CRS to put together a memo attacking S. 21, we 
quickly discovered it was based on fatally flawed assumptions.
  The memo purported to show that S. 21 would lead to less risk-based 
funding than under current law, but that was just plain wrong. And CRS, 
once the analysts talked with my staff, agreed they had made a mistake. 
In fact, CRS issued the memo I hold in my hand correcting the flawed 
conclusions of the Lautenberg memo.
  I ask unanimous consent that the CRS analysis be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     To: Honorable Susan M. Collins, Attention: Michael Bopp
     From: David C. Huckabee, 7-7877, Specialist in American 
         National Government Government and Finance Division
     Subject: Homeland Security Minimum Allocation Comparisons: 
         Figures From FY 2005 Appropriation Act, and S. 21, As 
         Reported
       This memorandum responds to your request for a comparison 
     of S. 21, as reported, and the FY 2005 Department of Homeland 
     Security (DHS) appropriations act with regard to the 
     allocation of funds in three homeland security assistance 
     programs: the State Homeland Security Grant program (SHSG); 
     the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP); and 
     the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program.
       You asked for comparisons of percentage change figures 
     between funds that were guaranteed to be distributed to the 
     50 states, the District of Columbia, and specified U.S. 
     possessions. For the purpose of this analysis I used the 
     $2.303 billion that DHS distributed in FY 2005 using the 
     rules in place for that year, and procedures included in S. 
     21, as reported. Comparisons of funding to jurisdictions in 
     FY 2005, and what would occur if S. 21 (as reported) were 
     enacted, are complicated by several factors:
       S. 21's guaranteed minimum funding to states (0.55% of the 
     total) is computed on a larger base ($2.303 billion, the 
     entire aggregate appropriation for SHSG, LETPP, and UASI) as 
     compared to the FY 2005 appropriation where states' 0.75% 
     base is applied to $1.448 billion (after excluding UASI 
     funds), and;
       The FY 2005 appropriation act required DHS to allocate all 
     the funds remaining after the required mininl.um percentages 
     were distributed among the states and territories (excluding 
     VASI funds) in the same manner as in FY 2004, i.e., by 
     population.
       The addition of the population distribution requirement in 
     FY 2005 increased state ``guaranteed minimum'' funds for that 
     fiscal year. If the S. 21 distribution formula were to be 
     adopted and appropriations remain at the FY 2005 level for 
     the SHSG, LETPP, and UASI programs in FY 2006, ``guaranteed'' 
     funding would decline by 39% (from $1.488 billion to $906 
     million), and risk-based funding would increase by 71% (from 
     $815 million to nearly $1.4 billion).

TABLE 1. PERCENT CHANGE IN GUARANTEED, AND RISK-BASED FUNDING BETWEEN S.
  21 AS REPORTED, AND FY 2005 APPROPRIATIONS ASSUMING A $2.385 BILLION
                              APPROPRIATION
                  [Figures are in millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     FY 2005     S. 21, as     Percent
           Description              funding\1\    reported      change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Guaranteed'' funding...........    $1,488.40      $906.36        -39.1
Risk-based funding: For FY 2005,        814.80     1,396.84         71.4
 figure included only UASI; S. 21
 would include UASI and funds not
 allocated by ``sliding scale''
 formula.........................
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................     2,303.20     2,303.20
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``Guaranteed'' funding included all SHSG and LETPP funds in FY 2005
  because the FY 2005 DHS appropriations act required population to be
  used to distribute funds not allocated by the PATRIOT act formula in
  2005.

       Congressional Quarterly's coverage of the Senate Homeland 
     Security and Governmental Affairs mark-up of S. 21 cited 
     information from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) 
     indicating that risk-based funding ``would fall by 19 
     percent'' under the S. 21 formula. The earlier CRS analysis 
     had compared funding levels required in authorizing 
     legislation. Thus the FY 2005 appropriation language 
     requiring DHS to do a population-based distribution of the 
     remaining funds after each state received its 0.75% base 
     amount was not included in the analysis.
       The FY 2005 DHS appropriations act required all SHSG and 
     LETPP funds to be distributed by a combination of a 
     guaranteed base, with the remaining funds allocated by 
     population. Thus, no SHSG or LETPP funds were available to be 
     allocated by risk in FY 2005 (or any other method DHS could 
     have chosen to use) because the PATRIOT act does not specify 
     how remaining funds will be distributed.
       If the funding formula is not changed for FY 2006, and the 
     DHS appropriations act omits the requirement that ``formula-
     based and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants . . . 
     shall be allocated in the same manner as fiscal year 2004,'' 
     funds guaranteed to states in 2006 would only include the 
     PATRIOT Act minimums.
       I trust that memorandum will meet your needs in this 
     matter. Please feel free to call me if I can further assist 
     you.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, as I understand it, the latest CRS 
analysis--as I understand it from press accounts since, again, the 
Senator has not been willing to share it with my office--is once again 
flawed. It does not take into account the sliding scale minimum 
allocation that is included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment.
  His sliding scale minimum distributes 10.7 percent of the funds in 
our bill based on population and population density. Those are two risk 
factors that are used by the Department of Homeland Security to 
distribute risk-based funds.
  I note, because I want to give credit where credit is due, that the 
proposal for this sliding scale minimum came from our colleague, a 
senior member of the committee, Senator Levin of Michigan.
  Let's look at the real numbers. The fact is there is a doubling in 
the amount of money that is based on risk under our amendment. The 
legislation before us emphasizes risk-based funding and doubles the 
amount of money compared to current law that would be allocated based 
on risk.
  The Committee on Homeland Security has done a great deal of work on 
this formula. I think we see today the problems that occur when we try 
to write a formula not in committee, not based on careful hearings, 
input from all interested parties, two markups, 3 years of 
deliberations by the committee, but instead try to cobble together an 
amendment on the Senate floor.
  I have heard again today the comparison that Wyoming gets more money 
on a per capita basis. The Senator from California, my friend and 
colleague, made that argument. Over and over again we hear the argument 
that homeland security dollars are unfairly allocated because less 
populous States generally get more per capita than more populous 
States. But the truth is, that argument does not hold water.
  What is the point of that argument? That homeland security dollars 
should be distributed on a per capita basis rather than risk and a 
minimum free each State? The fact is, risk-based allocations lead to 
per capita disparities as well.
  Let's take the District of Columbia as an example. I think every 
single Member of this distinguished body would agree that the District 
of Columbia, despite its relatively small population, is an extremely 
high-risk area. In fact, the District of Columbia gets by far the most 
on a per capita basis, nearly $217 per resident, because it is a small 
population, high-risk area.

[[Page 15573]]

  Taken to its logical conclusion, the argument of these advocates is 
fewer dollars to the national capital region. The fact is, distributing 
funds based on risk does not necessarily lessen the per capita 
disparities among recipients.
  We took a look at the distribution of fiscal year 2005 urban area 
security initiative funds which are allocated based on risk. What we 
found were the same or even greater levels of per capita disparities 
compared to an analysis of the urban areas and State grant funds 
combined. For example, Boston received nearly $48 per capita, where 
Houston, with over three times the population, received under $10 per 
person. Los Angeles received about $18 per capita; Pittsburgh, $29.
  The point is, moving from a formula to a risk-based distribution does 
not necessarily bridge those per capita divides.
  Second, let's look at what this is really all about. Under S. 21, the 
amount the small States would be guaranteed beyond their per capita 
shares amounts to less than 3 percent of the funds that are allocated--
3 percent. Let's use the real example.
  S. 21 would authorize $2.9 billion for homeland security grants. The 
total that small States are guaranteed in excess of their per capita 
share is just $85.4 million out of that $2.9 billion. Here is the chart 
that demonstrates what this allocation is all about.
  In contrast, the 19 most populous States receive some $619 million in 
guaranteed funds under the bill, seven times more than the less 
populous States are guaranteed beyond their per capita share.
  In short, we are not talking about a major redistribution of homeland 
security dollars.
  The fact is also that the potential of terrorist attacks against 
rural targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. 
I quoted yesterday the Harvard study that talked about rural areas 
facing unique and profound homeland security challenges. Bioterrorism, 
an attack on our food supply, where would those most likely occur? The 
food supply is outside our urban areas. A great many power grids, water 
supplies, nuclear plants--all of those are outside of urban areas.
  Likewise, a report from the RAND Corporation, prepared for the 
National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism, assessed 
how prepared State and local law enforcement is. It noted that 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.
  The report recognized that much of our Nation's infrastructure and 
potential high-value targets is located in rural areas.
  The Department of Homeland Security said that it is well known that 
terrorists choose to live and train in small and rural communities.
  Communities that my friends from California and New Jersey would say 
are at no risk, they are low risk, they should not receive risk money. 
These small and rural communities are where the terrorists live, train, 
and hide.
  That is why law enforcement has overwhelmingly endorsed the Collins-
Lieberman amendment. We have letters from the National Troopers 
Coalition, the Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police, the National 
Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police 
Associations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the 
United Federation of Police Officers, the International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement 
Executives, the International Association of Fire Chiefs.
  All of these groups representing law enforcement and representing our 
firefighters are endorsing the approach taken in the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment. One reason they do is for the first time we are going to 
have standards, we are going to tie spending to standards, and we 
recognize that the first responders in each and every State deserve our 
support.
  We need to bring every State up to a minimum level of preparedness, 
and we are not there now. That is why the National Governors 
Association and the National Emergency Management Association strongly 
endorse our approach.
  Over and over again we hear from these organizations that the funding 
formula proposed in the Collins-Lieberman amendment ``promotes a better 
level of preparedness and brings some predictability to States for 
planning purposes.'' That is from the National Troopers Coalition.
  The Fraternal Order of Police says our legislation--this is the 
Collins-Lieberman legislation--recognizes the fact that the majority of 
Federal funds have been previously directed toward recovery response 
operations, too often at the expense of the efforts to prevent future 
attacks. Ensuring that all communities achieve and maintain the 
appropriate response-and-recover capacity for terrorist incidents is a 
critical component. However, it is the goal of law enforcement to 
ensure that we never have a terrorist incident to respond or recover 
from. We want to stop the attack before it even occurs.
  Those are important advantages of the Collins-Lieberman approach. The 
accountability measures in our bill are absolutely critical and are 
missing from the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg approach.
  We know there has been wasteful funding. We cannot tolerate 
inappropriate and wasteful spending of critical homeland security 
funds. That is why we have strong accountability measures in the 
Collins-Lieberman proposal, measures that are lacking completely from 
the alternative put before us today. These accountability measures will 
ensure that no longer will homeland security funds be spent to purchase 
air-conditioned garbage trucks in the State of New Jersey--that is the 
kind of wasteful spending that we want to guard against--or leather 
jackets for the District of Columbia. Instead, spending would be tied 
to achieving essential capabilities for our first responders to meet 
national preparedness goals.
  This is a carefully thought out bill. It is a comprehensive bill. It 
reflects many hearings and input from the first responder community.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator 
from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sununu). The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I will be very brief. We just heard a 
reference to an investment made by the city of Newark. Newark Airport 
and the Port of Newark have been identified as the two most dangerous 
miles for a terrorist attack in the United States, and they chose to 
use the money to make sure their access ways would be clear of debris. 
That was their choice. We are not going to talk about what any other 
State does with their money. That is not the argument. The argument is, 
what is the truth? The truth is, CRS, in a phone call just now, for the 
information of the Senator from Maine, confirmed exactly what they gave 
us as being correct. Under the Collins amendment, they come down with a 
conclusion that the percentage allotted for the risk would be 60 
percent, and the percentage allotted for a guarantee, 40 percent. That 
is not what we are going into. Anything that we try to do to confuse 
the figures to say that oh, no, in fact we are getting more, well, New 
Jersey may get a couple more dollars under the Collins formula, but we 
have to look at where the bulk of the danger is to our country.
  Sure, rural States are entitled to be protected, but that is not done 
at the expense of having the most inviting targets in the country not 
get more money to protect themselves.
  The Senator from Maine asked for it. We are going to send over for 
her review the report from CRS, and we have clarified a couple of 
things. But at 60/40, we are far worse off than we were when we left 
the committee, and I do not understand why that is. Perhaps the Senator 
from Maine does not see threats in the country in the same way

[[Page 15574]]

that the 9/11 Commission or the Secretary of Homeland Security does. 
Dismiss that and make sure that everybody gets a little bit of the pie, 
that is not where we are.
  This is the second front in a war against terrorism, and we ought to 
make sure we put plenty of funding here. We spend over $200 billion a 
year in maintaining our fighting force in Iraq, and I want to do it as 
well as anybody else, but we sure do not say we ought to distribute 
funds throughout the Army, whether they are based in Georgia or some 
other State. No, we want to take care of them in the area where the 
risk is greatest, and that is the same thing we ought to be doing, and 
not trifling with this and trying to defend the numbers as not really 
saying what they say.
  They say what they say, and I ask unanimous consent that the report 
from CRS be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                     Washington, DC, July 8, 2005.


                               memorandum

     To: Honorable Frank Lautenberg, Attention: David Garten.
     From: Shawn Reese, Analyst in American National Government, 
         Government and Finance Division.
     Subject: ``Guaranteed'' Base Homeland Security Grant Amounts 
         in S. 21 and Senate Reported H.R. 2360.

       This memorandum responds to your request for information on 
     homeland security grant base amounts that would be 
     distributed in FY2006 to the states, U.S. possessions, and 
     territories (``guaranteed amounts'') in S. 21, as reported by 
     the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
     Committee on May 24, 2005, and H.R. 2360, as reported by the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16, 2005. 
     Specifically, you requested a chart (see Table 1) that 
     depicts allocations to the states, U.S. possessions, and 
     territories assuming an appropriation of $1.918 billion, the 
     amount recommended by the Senate Appropriations Committee in 
     H.R. 2360, and you requested the percent of funds that S. 21 
     and H.R. 2360 would allocate for such base amounts, as well 
     as the percent that would remain to be allocated through risk 
     assessments conducted by the Department of Homeland Security 
     Secretary. The first column of Table 1 depicts S. 21 base 
     amount allocations, and the second column depicts H.R. 2360 
     allocations. Additionally, you requested a third column to 
     the chart depicting a 0.25% guaranteed base.
       H.R. 2360. Of the $1.918 billion appropriated in H.R. 2360 
     ($1.518 billion for state and local grants and $400 million 
     for law enforcement terrorism prevention grants), $580 
     million would be distributed through the same distribution 
     process applied in FY2005. From the total of $580 million, 
     each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would receive $10.86 million, 
     and each U.S. possession and territory $3.62 million. After 
     the distributions, roughly $1.3 billion would be available to 
     be distributed through the risk assessment process.
       S. 21. The bill would allow states, U.S. possessions, and 
     territories to select either of two options that yields the 
     highest funding level. First, funds would be divided among 
     the states, the District of Columbia (DC), and U.S. 
     possessions and territories as follows: Puerto Rico and 
     specified U.S. possessions and territories 0.055%; these 
     total 28.62%. Second, states could alternatively choose to 
     receive an amount based on a ``sliding scale baseline 
     allocation'' calculated by multiplying 0.001 times (1) a 
     state's population ratio and (2) a state's population density 
     ratio. After the funds are distributed ($763 million as shown 
     in Table 1), the remainder is distributed through the risk 
     assessment process, with a maximum of 50% to be distributed 
     to high-threat urban areas, and the remainder to the states.
       I trust that this memorandum meets your needs; please 
     contact me if you need further information.

  TABLE 1.--S. 21 AND SENATE REPORTED H.R. 2360 GUARANTEED BASE AMOUNTS
                        [All amounts in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Senate
              State                   S. 21       Reported    0.25% Base
                                                 H.R. 2360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..........................       $10.55       $10.86        $4.80
Alaska...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Arizona..........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Arkansas.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
California.......................        57.59        10.86         4.80
Colorado.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Connecticut......................        13.82        10.86         4.80
Delaware.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Florida..........................        30.38        10.86         4.80
Georgia..........................        15.29        10.86         4.80
Hawaii...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Idaho............................        10.55        10.86         4.80
lllinois.........................        22.12        10.86         4.80
Indiana..........................        11.57        10.86         4.80
Iowa.............................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Kansas...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Kentucky.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Louisiana........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Maine............................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Maryland.........................        15.15        10.86         4.80
Massachusetts....................        19.39        10.86         4.80
Michigan.........................        17.55        10.86         4.80
Minnesota........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Mississippi......................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Missouri.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Montana..........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Nebraska.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Nevada...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
New Hampshire....................        10.55        10.86         4.80
New Jersey.......................        27.03        10.86         4.80
New Mexico.......................        10.55        10.86         4.80
New York.........................        34.17        10.86         4.80
North Carolina...................        15.11        10.86         4.80
North Dakota.....................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Ohio.............................        28.80        10.86         4.80
Oklahoma.........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Oregon...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Pennsylvania.....................        22.21        10.86         4.80
Rhode Island.....................        13.75        10.86         4.80
South Carolina...................        10.55        10.86         4.80
South Dakota.....................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Tennessee........................        10.70        10.86         4.80
Texas............................        35.40        10.86         4.80
Utah.............................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Vermont..........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Virginia.........................        13.61        10.86         4.80
Washington.......................        10.58        10.86         4.80
West Virginia....................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Wisconsin........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Wyoming..........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
DC+NCR...........................        10.55        10.86         4.80
Puerto Rico......................         6.71        10.86         4.80
U.S. Virgin Islands..............         1.05         3.62         1.60
Guam.............................         1.05         3.62         1.60
American Samoa...................         1.05         3.62         1.60
Northern Marianas................         1.05         3.62         1.60
                                  --------------------------------------
    Guaranteed Base Total........       762.73    \1\579.20       251.20
Remainder to Be Allocated Based       1,155.27     1,338.80     1,666.80
 on Risk.........................
                                  ======================================
      Total......................      1918.00      1918.00      1918.00
Percentage Allocated for                   40%          30%          13%
 Guaranteed Base.................
Percentage Allocated for Risk....          60%          70%          87%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Due to rounding in CRS calculations, this amount is $800 thousand
  less than $580 million.
Source: CRS calculations based on formulas in S. 21 and Senate reported
  H.R. 2360.
 

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. We will see that the Senator from Maine gets a copy 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the Senator from New Jersey is mistaken 
in saying this bill provides less risk-based assistance than the 
legislation reported from the committee in April. It does not. The 
Senator is in error. It is exactly the same as the committee-reported 
bill, which was reported without dissent on a voice vote.
  The fact is, the Collins-Lieberman amendment doubles the funds that 
would be distributed based on threat, risk, and consequences while 
maintaining a predictable and meaningful level of funding for each 
State.
  For the Nation to be prepared, all States must achieve a baseline 
level of essential capabilities. The Federal Government is a partner 
with our State and local governments and with our 9 million first 
responders in this regard. Unfortunately, what we are seeing today is a 
regrettable and corrosive argument that is pitting urban centers 
against rural States. Our bill does not do that. We have carefully 
crafted a compromise that ensures that every State receives a baseline 
level in order to recognize that every State has homeland security 
needs and vulnerabilities and that first responders throughout the 
country need to be properly equipped, trained, and supported.
  We know the terrorists traveled through, trained in, and stayed in 
rural States. Two of them left from my home State of Portland, ME, to 
begin their journey of devastation and death on September 11. A 
predictable stream of funding is essential to achieving the goals, but 
the fact is, S. 21 doubles the amount of money for risk-based funding 
compared to the current law. If one looks at this chart, the Senator 
from New Jersey repeatedly ignores the 10.7-percent distribution, which 
was Senator Levin's proposal, which means that risk-based factors 
account for more than 70 percent of the funding. That is more than 
double what is involved in current law.
  So we have doubled the amount of money that would be allocated based 
on risk factors while maintaining a steady, predictable base line 
funding so that all States can achieve a level of preparedness. Again, 
the Senator from New Jersey----
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. COLLINS. I will be happy to yield once I conclude my explanation.
  The Senator from New Jersey again ignores the amount of money in this 
bill that would go to the law enforcement terrorism prevention program, 
which would be authorized for the first time in this legislation. 
Prevention takes a back seat to responding to a terrorist attack, and 
that is why virtually every police association in this country has 
endorsed the Collins-Lieberman bill, virtually every one, because of 
our emphasis on prevention as well.

[[Page 15575]]

  The National Association of Police Organizations wrote: Unlike other 
homeland security grant proposals, S. 21 ensures that the prevention of 
terrorist attacks, not just response efforts, receives a significant 
share of homeland security funds.
  I would be happy to yield to the Senator from New Jersey on his time 
or on the time of Senator Feinstein.
  I yield the floor but reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I thank the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Feinstein 
amendment which is a sensible and vital reform of the way our homeland 
security dollars are distributed.
  The 9/11 Commission wrote in its report that:

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

  All communities, large and small, need to be prepared for the worst. 
However, with limited and, frankly, inadequate resources, we have to 
make choices about how to prioritize homeland security spending.
  The 9/11 Commission stated in its report:

       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.

  That is exactly what the Feinstein amendment does. It requires 
homeland security grants to be allocated based on an assessment of 
threat, vulnerability, and impact on the Nation.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, under the Feinstein 
amendment, 87 percent of homeland security spending would be based on 
risk.
  Today, by comparison, fully 37.5 percent of homeland security funds 
are allocated for distribution before any risk analysis is done.
  A Washington Post editorial of May 17 asked the question:

       What, exactly are Federal ``first responder'' grants 
     supposed to do? Are they intended to give extra financial 
     help to firefighters and police officers who work in places 
     where the risk of a terrorist attack is highest? Or are they 
     meant to spread Federal pork evenly around the country?

  This is not an attempt, however, to deny any Federal homeland 
security funding to those areas that we know are the least likely to be 
targets.
  Under the Feinstein amendment, $251 million in Federal homeland 
security aid would still be spread evenly across the States.
  However, the vast majority of funding--over $1.6 billion--would be 
allocated based on actual risk.
  In practical terms, the amendment will guarantee $300 million more 
than the underlying bill for high-risk areas.
  It means that cities like Boston, with its dense concentration of 
high-risk targets, will get the support it needs and deserves.
  The city is a major financial hub with more than 130,000 people 
employed in the securities, banking and insurance sectors. Any 
interruption in the ability of these industries to function would 
undoubtedly reverberate far beyond the city, and be felt across the 
Nation.
  The city was also a major part of the high-tech boom years of the 
1990s. Today, it remains one of the Nation's most innovative high-tech 
corridors. It employs over 100,000 professionals whose inventiveness is 
not limited to the city, but is a major component of the Nation's 
economic recovery.
  The $7 billion tourism industry is also a major driver of economic 
growth. September 11 had an acute impact on Boston's ability to attract 
visitors. Undoubtedly, if another attack were to happen, a similar 
chilling affect would occur.
  The danger is not theoretical. In 2001, an Algerian citizen, who 
later joined al-Qaida entered Boston as a stowaway on an Algerian gas 
tanker.
  Security experts said that if the tanker's hull and cargo tanks had 
been successfully breached, the result could have been a disastrous 
fire in the port of Boston.
  Another key aspect of the Feinstein amendment is its preservation of 
the Urban Area Security Initiative, which has funded preparedness and 
prevention efforts in 56 of the most likely target regions that are 
home to more than 75 million people.
  Yesterday, the mayors of 22 cities, including Boston, wrote the 
distinguished majority and minority leaders expressing their support 
for the Feinstein amendment. They wrote:

       It maintains the critical partnership between the Federal 
     government, States and the Nation's highest risk areas by 
     maintaining the Urban Area Security Initiative program. These 
     Urban Area Security Initiative regions have for several years 
     been aggressively working to implement comprehensive plans 
     for terrorism prevention and preparedness approved by their 
     States and the Department of Homeland Security. Maintaining 
     the Urban Area Security Initiative program will preserve and 
     sustain the substantial planning, long-term projects, and 
     regional decision-making processes underway.

  Without the Feinstein amendment, we could see a funding cut in the 
Urban Area Security Initiative.
  We all agree that every community in America deserves to receive its 
fair share of Federal homeland security assistance. No community should 
be left unprotected. But it makes no sense to use limited resources to 
provide maximum preparedness in the least at-risk communities, when we 
still have not yet achieved even the minimum level of preparedness in 
our most high-risk areas. The Feinstein amendment reflects that obvious 
priority for communities across the country, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Collins amendment 
to the Homeland Security appropriations bill before this body. I want 
to thank Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee 
Chairwoman Collins and Ranking Member Lieberman for the diligent and 
considerate effort they have made to bring this legislation forward.
  Also, I would like to thank Jeffrey Highley, a civil engineering 
fellow in my office, for all of his hard work on this issue. He has 
been a valuable asset to my office.
  I know there will always be more that we can do to prepare for and 
prevent against the threats to our security. Yet the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill before this body continues to reduce the level of 
State funding that began as a response to an attack on our Nation.
  That is why this amendment is so necessary. It restores threat-based 
funding to the level States received in 2004 and increases the amount 
in the underlying bill by more than $1 billion. Furthermore, it 
provides a smart and responsible approach to funding.
  In order for our State and local emergency response teams to plan a 
long-term strategy of preparedness, they need to have a level of 
predictable funding. States are required to submit plans to DHS 3 years 
in advance. This amendment will establish a fair and stable funding 
formula that States such as Arkansas can use to plan ahead.
  Furthermore, this amendment will ensure that critical prevention 
efforts receive funding. The National Association of Police 
Organizations agrees, ``[this amendment] ensures that the prevention of 
terrorist attacks--not just response efforts--receive a significant 
share of the homeland security funds.''
  I know there are some in Congress who believe that the funding 
formula for homeland security grants should solely reflect perceived 
threat and risk. While I understand these concerns, I respectfully 
disagree with my colleagues on the merits of their arguments.
  Conventional wisdom might suggest that another terrorist attack will 
involve a target-rich environment--a big bustling city with skyscrapers 
and millions of people. Conventional wisdom suggests that terrorists 
might strike at a location or at a symbol that personifies America. I 
say, however, that to only rely on conventional wisdom sets ourselves 
up for unforeseen but certain tragedy down the road.
  I ask my colleagues: Four years ago could we have fathomed 19 
terrorists hijacking American airliners with box cutters no less? Could 
we have fathomed these hijackers using those airliners to conduct 
suicide missions? Could we have fathomed watching as

[[Page 15576]]

two airplanes struck the World Trade Center and yet another crashing 
into the Pentagon?
  And as you ponder those questions, I also ask: Just 1 month after 
that, as America was pulling itself out of the ashes, still recovering 
from the horrific acts of September 11, 2001, did anyone foresee an 
envelope being sent to Senator Tom Daschle's office that would cause 
the largest biological attack on American soil and effectively shut 
down the Senate Hart Building for several months?
  We look back at these events now in hindsight and I think we have 
learned a lot about our enemy and what it will take for us to both win 
the war on terror and defend our homeland.
  But let us remember: we must be prepared for the next terrorist 
attack, not the last. And that terrorist attack could come in many 
shapes and sizes.
  I understand how some might think that big cities on the east and 
west coasts are those most vulnerable, most at risk for another 
horrific attempt. But I think it is obtuse to write off a large section 
of this country because of conventional wisdom.
  I think it is naive to believe terrorists would never strike at our 
heartland, that they would not attempt to attack our food supply or our 
nuclear and chemical plants located in both large and small States.
  I think it is shortsighted to think that the next attack will be 
similar to the first and to prepare with such narrow vision.
  In order for America to be protected from terrorism, we need all 
parts of the country to be prepared.
  Local and State entities and first responders across the Nation have 
worked doggedly to make our Nation safer, and they have. Our civilian 
authorities must be able to respond to whatever may confront them in 
the future. But how can they properly respond when they are not given 
adequate resources?
  With the amendment offered by Senators Collins and Lieberman, State 
homeland security will be based on the essential capabilities necessary 
to prepare for potential terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other 
emergencies--no matter where they might occur.
  September 11 made us acutely aware that there are vulnerabilities in 
our homeland but it also made us acutely aware of the need of genuine 
partnerships that involve all segments of our communities and all 
levels of government--we all have a role in keeping our community safe.
  So I submit that part of our job of the Federal Government must be to 
ensure that local governments are given the resources to protect their 
citizenry and that we all share the responsibilities for homeland 
security wisely and fairly.
  This is why I urge my colleagues from States small and large to 
support the Collins amendment. It strikes a fair balance between the 
critical need to provide a baseline of protection and providing risk-
based funding.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, While I support the underlying amendment 
and hope my colleagues will support it, I rise to strongly object to a 
provision in this amendment which lies within the jurisdiction of the 
Senate Finance Committee. Section 1808 requires the Bureau of Customs 
and Border Patrol to conduct a study on the screening of municipal 
waste. The Bureau is then required to ban the importation of such waste 
6 months after the report is submitted unless certain certifications 
are made.
  I have been in consultation with the Office of the United States 
Trade Representative and believe that this provision raises serious 
international trade concerns. In fact, this provision could violate 
trade responsibilities under both the World Trade Organization and the 
North American Free Trade Agreement. If that is the case, our exporters 
are likely to face retaliation. I don't want that to happen. 
Furthermore, it could also provoke similar restrictive actions by our 
trading partners against U.S. waste exports. According to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 250 U.S. companies in 
over 30 States sent hazardous waste shipments to Canada in 2003 alone.
  I am especially disappointed that this provision was reported out by 
the Committee on Homeland Security. Last year we engaged in significant 
debate regarding appropriate jurisdictional responsibilities of each 
committee. The Senate determined that provisions relating to Customs 
and border protection and international trade clearly lie within the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.
  Just a cursory reading of the scope of the Finance Committee's 
jurisdiction under Rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides 
that:

       The following standing committees shall be appointed at the 
     commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have 
     the power to act until their successors are appointed, with 
     leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their 
     respective jurisdictions:
       Committee on Finance, to which committee shall be referred 
     all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and 
     other matters relating to the following subjects: Customs, 
     collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery; 
     reciprocal trade agreements; revenue measures generally; and 
     tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto.
  An elaboration of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction 
can be found on our web site where it is clearly explained that:

       The Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction is defined by 
     subject matter--not by agency or Department.
       As a consequence of the committee's broad subject matter 
     jurisdiction, the Finance Committee has sole or shared 
     jurisdiction over the activities of numerous agencies and 
     offices: the Office of the United States Trade 
     Representative; the Department of Agriculture Foreign 
     Agricultural Service on matters relating to foreign barriers 
     to U.S. agriculture goods; numerous divisions within the 
     Department of Commerce; and Broad Jurisdiction over the 
     Department of Homeland Security.

  This provision of this amendment clearly falls within the 
jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. And there is a reason for 
committee jurisdiction. We need to ensure that those committees with 
appropriate expertise have an opportunity to weigh the implications of 
these provisions before they become law. Otherwise, we end up exactly 
where we are today--exposing our exporters to unnecessary trade 
retaliation due to ill conceived and short-sighted provisions.
  I urge the conferees to reject this provision during conference 
consideration.
  Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need for 
risk-based homeland security funding. This concept is as urgent as it 
is simple.
  Homeland security grants related to terrorism prevention and 
terrorism preparedness should be allocated based strictly on an 
assessment of risk, threat, and vulnerabilities.
  The best approach is to ensure that all homeland security funds are 
allocated to States based on the vulnera-
bilities of each State. Earlier this year, Senator Lautenberg and I 
introduced a bill to ensure that the distribution of Homeland Security 
funds would be 100-percent risk based. This is the right way to ensure 
that our homeland is truly protected. It is not an issue of believing 
that larger, more populous States deserve more funding; it is simply a 
question of believing that the places with the greatest need deserve 
the most resources.
  The Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill on the Senate 
floor includes a 70-percent risk-based formula that would ensure that 
$1.3 billion in funding would be allocated based on risk. Senators 
Feinstein and Cornyn have proposed an amendment to improve this and 
ensure that 87 percent of the funds--$1.9 billion--would be allocated 
based on risk. While I would still prefer 100 percent, I support the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.
  New Jersey and the rest of the country will be much safer under the 
Feinstein-Cornyn proposal than under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, 
which would only allocate 60 percent of the funds based on risk. Under 
the Collins-Lieberman amendment, all of the homeland security grant 
money would be combined into one fund; of that, 40 percent would be 
allocated as guaranteed funding for the States and would be distributed 
either on the basis of .55 percent per State or on a sliding scale 
baseline allocation, which would be determined by a State's population 
and

[[Page 15577]]

population density. Even given the enhanced funding allowance for 
densely populated States, New Jersey and other high-risk States would 
still fair worse under the Collins-Lieberman amendment. That is because 
the amendment combines all funding sources into one fund and allocates 
too much funding, 40 percent of the total allocation, as minimum, 
guaranteed grants to each State. Under a more risk-based formula, New 
Jersey would receive greater homeland security funds to handle the 
substantial risks that face my State.
  Mr. President, those of us who live in high-risk areas are acutely 
aware of the threat of terrorism. But protecting our homeland is not 
something that can, or should, be looked at as an exclusively ``local'' 
issue. Experts throughout the Nation support a risk-based approach. 
Protecting America, in the places where we are most vulnerable, in 
places where we know that terrorist want to inflict the greatest harm, 
is in fact a national issue--which is why the 9/11 Commission 
recommended pure risk-based allocation.
  To quote the Commission:

       Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an 
     assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. . . . [F]ederal 
     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 a 
     pork barrel.

  Mr. President, one of the reasons this is such a national priority is 
because of the economic issues at stake. An attack on our Nation's 
economic assets, our capital markets, or our financial institutions 
would have a ripple effect throughout the country and have a serious 
long-term effect on our Nation's economy.
  Protecting these assets has to be part of our national strategic 
considerations. In my State, New Jersey, we have many such targets. We 
have areas like the Port Newark. Eighty percent of the cargo containers 
that come into the east coast arrive at that port.
  Then there is the 2-mile stretch, from the port to Newark Airport, a 
stretch of terrain the FBI has called the ``most dangerous 2 miles in 
America.''
  And Mr. President, Newark Airport is not only the busiest airport in 
the tristate area, it is, depending on the time of year, the third or 
fourth busiest airport in America. A terrorist attack on Newark 
Airport, or on any of these other possible targets, would have a wide-
ranging, long-term effect on our national economy. Protecting these 
critical national assets must be a national priority.
  Regrettably, the current homeland security grant system results in 
funding allocations that fail to adequately consider the risk, 
vulnerability and threats posed to specific communities. And that is 
just plain wrong.
  To understand why, we need to look at the practical realities of 
homeland security.
  My home State of New Jersey is on the front lines of terrorism. We 
lost 700 people on September 11, 2001. Two of the 9/11 terrorists were 
based in New Jersey and the anthrax that hit this institution 
originated in New Jersey.
  In addition to Port Newark and Newark Airport, the Ports of 
Philadelphia and Camden are critical vulnerabili-
ties.
  New Jersey is home to rail lines, bridges, and tunnels to New York 
City, as well as chemical plants and nuclear facilities.
  Atlantic City has the second highest concentration of casinos in the 
country.
  Wall Street and other financial services firms house important front 
and back office operations, including clearance and settlement 
services, and other operations essential to functioning of America's 
capital markets in Newark, Jersey City, and Hoboken.
  To underscore those risks, in the summer of 2004 Newark was one of 
three locations--including New York City and Washington, DC--that was 
put on Orange Alert for a possible terrorist attack as intelligence 
suggested that the Prudential building in downtown Newark could be a 
target.
  And Mr. President, the costs associated with protecting Newark during 
that period of heightened security alert were very real.
  Last year wasn't the first time that New Jersey has incurred 
substantial costs because of its unique vulnerability.
  The post office in Hamilton, NJ, where the anthrax was sent, has had 
to be cleaned up. The costs are expected to be $72 million for 
decontamination and $27 million for the refurbishment of the facility.
  Yet despite these growing threats to New Jersey--from anthrax to the 
Orange Alert, and the ever-expanding costs associated with protecting 
the most densely populated State in the country, remarkably homeland 
security grants to New Jersey were cut in 2005.
  Funding was reduced from $93 million in 2004 to $61 million in 2005. 
Newark has seen a 17-percent reduction in funds, from $14.9 million to 
$12.4 million. And, incredibly, Jersey City's homeland security funds 
have dropped by 60 percent, from $17 million in 2004 to $6.7 million in 
2005.
  These cuts leave New Jersey--home of countless businesses and people 
that keep our economic engine moving; home of one of the most active 
and exposed ports in the country; home of one of the busiest airports 
in America; home of our Nation's new Homeland Security Secretary--36th 
in the Nation in per capita homeland security funding.
  That, Mr. President, is a travesty.
  We must allocate assistance to cities, municipalities and communities 
according to risk and vulnerability.
  Mr. President, it is hard for the people of New Jersey to live 
through what they have and then see cuts in homeland security. This is 
an extremely important issue to them and they want and expect change.
  I am not seeking to deprive other parts of the country of the 
homeland security funding they need. But I believe that we must leave 
it to the Department of Homeland Security to make the determination of 
what States should receive funding based on need, vulnerabilities, and 
threats.
  The Department of Homeland Security was created to stop terrorism. It 
is responsible for analyzing intelligence on threats to our Nation and 
for protecting our people and our infrastructure.
  Mr. President, directing our homeland security funding toward those 
areas that are most at risk is especially critical in times of 
shrinking budgets. And let me note that the President understands the 
need for risk-based funding and suggested an approach similar to the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment in his budget for 2006 when he proposed the 
allocation of $251 million to each State and $1.7 billion, or 87 
percent of total funds, for higher risk areas based upon need.
  By passing the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, we will continue the 
critical work of post-9/11 reform that included the creation of the 
Department of Homeland Security itself, the establishment of the 9/11 
Commission, and the passage of the intelligence reform bill.
  Mr. President, we need to deal with homeland security as we do 
national security. That means directing our resources toward making us 
safer by targeting need, vulnerability, and threat to address the 
Nation's homeland security funding needs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much do I have remaining this 
morning?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 4 minutes 10 
seconds remaining. The Senator from Maine has 14 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield, then, to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I had asked to be yielded to for a 
question, but if there is no yielding, if the time is charged to me, I 
do not need consent from anybody. If it is our time, we are going to 
use it.
  I thank the Senator from Maine but would say no thank you, and I will 
take this brief minute because what we are looking at is what has 
passed

[[Page 15578]]

through the committee and what is actually on the floor as an 
appropriations bill.
  Under the appropriations bill--this is CRS--it very simply says 
$1.338 billion for the underlying bill creates a shortage for the risk-
based of $183.53 million. We can turn the table, we can play with the 
numbers, but we are looking at an appropriations bill. And if we do not 
believe CRS, then I do not know to whom we ought to turn for advice and 
for understanding.
  When the Senator from Maine suggests that my numbers are incorrect, 
do not take my numbers, please. Just take CRS and see what they say. It 
makes it all very clear. It is a 60/40 relationship, far different than 
that which we intended when the amendment passed the committee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will use the time, if I might, then. The 
distinguished chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
mentioned something which affected me a little bit, and I would like to 
respond to it respectfully, that our amendment was cobbled together on 
the Senate floor. I point out that our amendment was introduced as a 
bill on May 12. I also point out that prior to that we worked on this 
amendment for at least 6 months with high-risk areas, with cities, with 
States, and with law enforcement.
  This amendment is born in the belief that just as terrorists in Great 
Britain did not go to Stratford-on-Avon, they went to London; just as 
9/11 did not take place in Milpitas, CA, it took place in the financial 
center of America; and just as the bombers in Spain did not go to a 
rural Spanish community, they went to Madrid.
  Now, I can only use my experience as a member of the Intelligence 
Committee to say whether it is advisable to have a fixed formula or 
advisable to give those people who have access to all of the 
intelligence--intelligence from CIA, intelligence from counterterrorism 
people, intelligence from the FBI, and all of those who do the risk 
analysis, whether they should have the flexibility to determine where 
the moneys go. From my perspective, that is the way to go. From my 
perspective, America is best protected if we give the people with the 
knowledge and the intelligence the maximum flexibility to allocate 
funds based on quality of grants to areas that are likely targets. 
Nothing can change my mind on this. If you review intelligence, you get 
an idea of what might be a target and what is not a target.
  That is just today. It could change in 6 months. It could change in 2 
years. There are many of us who believe we are in this war, this 
asymmetric, terrible, non-state-actor war, for a long period of time. 
For me, just as you would give the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ability to 
mount a battle plan, I think we should give Homeland Security the 
ability to mount the risk analysis that enables the distribution of 
grants in the most effective way.
  We have tried to do this in our bill. The underlying bill has 70 
percent of the funds based on risk; the Collins-Lieberman amendment, 60 
percent on risk; and Feinstein-Cornyn, 87.5 percent on risk.
  The choice is clear. People who believe differently will vote 
differently. There is always a question because we know the composition 
of this body, we know the number of small States, and we know the 
likelihood that people are going to vote their State. I say to them, 
whether they do the best thing, if something happens and people look 
back as to how the money was allocated, I would much prefer to be able 
to say that the best experts we have have made the decisions on the 
allocation of funds, rather than that I would doing it on any other 
basis, whether that basis is population, whether it is geography, 
whether it is based on whether you produce food or whether you produce 
high tech or anything else. The money must go where the threat and risk 
is, the money must go where the vulnerabilities in the eyes of the 
terrorists are, and no formula can know where those vulnerabilities 
are.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, before the Senator from California leaves 
the floor, let me say I admire the Senator from California, who is one 
of the most careful, thorough Members of this body.
  The point that I was trying to make, and perhaps not as artfully as I 
should have, is that the Homeland Security Committee has held extensive 
hearings on the Homeland Security Grant Program. I am not aware of 
other committees in the Senate having done that. We have held extensive 
hearings over 3 years. We drafted a bipartisan bill. We received input 
from a number of groups. We have had two different markups, and the 
bill was reported unanimously last year, with only Senator Lautenberg 
in dissent this year. So our bill has had a great deal of 
consideration. That was the only point I was trying to make.
  As the Senator knows, I have a great deal of admiration for what a 
careful legislator she is.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might say, Mr. President, I have great 
admiration for the Senator from Maine in the way she has conducted 
herself and the leadership she has shown.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, let me clear up a couple of 
misperceptions surrounding this debate. First of all, this debate is 
not about big States versus small States, although it certainly sounds 
that way.
  Our amendment, for example, is cosponsored by both Senators from Ohio 
and, in fact, was heavily influenced by and contributed to by the 
Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin. I ask unanimous consent he be added 
as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. COLLINS. One reason our amendment bridges the small State-big 
State divide is that unlike the alternative amendment, the underlying 
bill, or current law, our amendment breaks away from a one-size-fits-
all approach by establishing this sliding scale minimum allocation. 
Does a more populous State require more funds to achieve adequate 
levels of preparedness and prevention? The answer is yes, which is why 
the 19 most populous and densely populated States would get a higher 
baseline allocation than the .55 percent that other States would 
achieve. That includes the State of New Jersey, I would note, which 
receives considerably more.
  Second, the underlying bill is not a middle point between the 
amendment that Senator Lieberman and I have offered and the Feinstein-
Cornyn amendment. In fact, the underlying bill in our amendment 
includes substantially the same type of baseline allocation for most 
States. The difference is that under our amendment, the 19 most 
populous and densely populated States would receive a greater baseline 
allocation.
  If you take into account the sliding scale minimum, which neither of 
my friends on the other side of the aisle have taken into account when 
they look at our bill, our amendment and the underlying bill allocates 
substantially the same amount of funds based on risk.
  When we talk about the significance of preventing the next terrorist 
attack, it is important to note that terrorists have been proven to use 
staging areas away from the most obvious targets. So while New York 
City, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC, are clearly targets, let us not 
forget that opportunities to catch terrorists, to stop them, exist in 
places such as Portland, ME; Norman, OK; and Norcross, GA.
  As a recent publication of the International Association of Chiefs of 
Police notes:

       Several of the terrorists involved in the September 11 
     attacks had routine encounters with State and local law 
     enforcement officials in the weeks and months prior to the 
     attack. If State, tribal and local law enforcement officers 
     are adequately equipped and

[[Page 15579]]

     trained, they can be invaluable assets in efforts to identify 
     and apprehend suspected terrorists before they strike.

  Let's again look at some of the facts. As the 9/11 Commission report 
notes, terrorists trained and operated in different parts of the 
country to prepare for and carry out the September 11 attacks. For 
example, two of the terrorists were pilots and visited the flight 
school in Norman, OK. Norman is also where Moussaoui and another 
terrorist resided while attending school. Two of the terrorists stayed 
in Georgia, visiting such small communities as Norcross and Decatur 
before living in Stone Mountain, GA.
  Although the 9/11 Commission found no explanation for these travels, 
the terrorists' mobility reveals an unpredictable pattern that shows 
that their presence was not confined to large cities. Over and over 
again, if you look at the list from the 9/11 Commission, you will see 
that the terrorists trained and lived in rural America, in small 
communities. As I have said earlier, this issue is very real to us from 
the Northeast, from the State of Maine in particular, because two of 
the terrorists started their day on 9/11 from the Portland, ME, 
airport.
  Over and over again, we have seen, from law enforcement, warnings 
that we need to pay attention to prevention, and that is exactly what 
this bill does. Local police departments and sheriff's offices provide 
the bulk of law enforcement services to rural communities, and they are 
severely constrained by a lack of resources. That is why so many law 
enforcement groups have endorsed the Collins-Lieberman proposal.
  There are other challenges; for example, to our food supply. But I 
see the Senator from Connecticut is now on the floor, so I yield to him 
the remaining time before we return to the Reid amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Maine. I regret I had other commitments that did not allow me to join 
with her in defense of our very worthy amendment. I look forward to 
being back here at 2:15 when we return to it.
  Yesterday, I explained why I believe that our amendment is the right 
thing to do. It is balanced. It increases the funding based on risk to 
those areas that have been deemed to be highest risk. But it recognizes 
a reality that terrorists strike at vulnerable targets. Because they 
struck Washington and New York on September 11, 2001, doesn't mean that 
they are not going to strike smaller areas of our country, less 
populated, in the years ahead. In fact, one of the great fears people 
have had is of a coordinated series of terrorist attacks on public 
places outside of large urban areas.
  The fact is, those places in America need to have some support from 
us as well for their first responders and to serve also as first 
preventers. That is exactly what our amendment does.
  The amendment introduced by the Senators from California and Texas 
would all but eliminate the minimum amount of Homeland Security funding 
guaranteed to each State and would give the Secretary of Homeland 
Security almost unfettered discretion over more than 90 percent of 
Homeland Security grant funds. This amendment that Senator Collins and 
I have introduced dedicates significantly more funding to purely risk-
based grants than has been the case in previous years. Under our 
amendment, it is fair to say that everybody gets more support to 
protect their citizens against the terrorist threat, including those 
areas that are deemed to be the highest risk, but at the same time we, 
in the Collins-Lieberman amendment, strike a judicious balance that 
would allow each State to achieve basic preparedness.
  Further, substantial reductions in the minimum would make it more 
difficult for States to achieve those essential capabilities, as 
outlined in the National Preparedness Goals that the Department of 
Homeland Security has set out for our Nation.
  I want to very briefly outline, in the minute or two left before we 
go to another matter, several reasons why I think we should stick with 
the balanced approach in S. 21, which is the Collins-Lieberman 
amendment that came out of the Homeland Security Committee with 
overwhelming bipartisan support--only one vote against it. While there 
is a need for more risk-based funding, risk-based methodology is an 
art, not a science. The bottom line is that while we think we know 
where terrorists wish to attack based on past experience, the fact is 
we don't know for sure. They strike hard targets, they strike soft 
targets.
  Risk-based methodology is an art the Department of Homeland Security 
is still struggling to develop. So let's not talk about it as if it is 
science. It is prediction. It is a probability. If we focus all of our 
funding on where those probabilities lead, it will leave most of the 
country undefended.
  Terrorists have demonstrated a willingness to attack a wide variety 
of targets in a wide variety of places. In 2001, a plot was uncovered 
by intelligence agencies to attack an American school in Singapore. In 
2002, in Bali, terrorists targeted a discotheque. In 2003, terrorists 
struck a residential compound in Riyadh. In 2004, terrorists targeted a 
school in Beslan, Russia. Most of these may not have been considered to 
be high-risk areas, but nonetheless they were targets of terrorists.
  Our own distinguished FBI Director Bob Mueller has said America is 
awash in desirable targets for the terrorists throughout this country. 
Funding provided to States outside of the so-called high-risk areas 
could well be the key to preventing an attack in another State, which I 
will speak to later in the day.
  The Collins-Lieberman amendment will assure that every State can 
achieve the level of preparedness the Department of Homeland Security 
has defined for the Nation. It will be a predictable, reliable stream 
of funding. The bottom line is more States have more to gain from our 
amendment in defense of our homeland security.
  I thank the Chair. Noting the hour, I yield the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1129

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 12 
o'clock will be equally divided in the usual form for debate on the 
Murray amendment.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, would you state the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there is 30 minutes 
of debate on the amendment offered by Senator Reid on behalf of Senator 
Murray of Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senators 
Corzine, Dayton, Conrad, Bingaman, and Salazar to my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 2 weeks ago the Senate came together, not 
as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to do what is right for 
our Nation's veterans. By a vote of 96-0, we all agreed to increase 
veterans funding by $1.5 billion. We agreed to fill the appalling 
shortfall the VA faces this year by agreeing to that amendment for $1.5 
billion. It was a very clear message that we will be there for the 
people who have served our country. I was very proud of the Senate when 
we passed that amendment to do the right thing.
  Shortly following that unanimous vote, the majority leader stood on 
the Senate floor and moved to have the Senate yield to the House of 
Representatives' lower figure of $975 million. That would have gone 
against what this Senate had just agreed to. That proposal by the 
majority leader also went against what the Senate Appropriations 
Committee had agreed to earlier that very same day. On a bipartisan and 
unanimous basis, the Senate Appropriations Committee members reaffirmed 
that the Senate should approve the full $1.5 billion in immediate 
funding for the VA. The Appropriations Committee and the full Senate 
unanimously agreed that America's veterans deserve the full $1.5 
billion for this fiscal year. Then there was an attempt to accept a 
lower number.
  We need to make sure in this Senate there is no backtracking and that 
veterans in this country who have served

[[Page 15580]]

us honorably do not get shortchanged. To make it clear to our Nation's 
veterans and to the American public, I am here with my colleague 
Senator Akaka and others in the Senate, offering an amendment that 
clears up this confusion. It clearly says the Senate stands firmly 
behind our unanimous vote of $1.5 billion in emergency spending for 
veterans health care.
  If we backtrack, if we walk away from the $1.5 billion we promised 
this year for our veterans, our men and women who have served this 
country honorably will be hurt. If we yield to the House's $975 
million, the VA hiring freeze will remain in place. That means no new 
mental health specialists will be hired to help our veterans who are 
dealing with posttraumatic stress disorder.
  If any of my colleagues went home as I did last week and talked to 
returning soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan, they will know as I do 
that these mental health specialists are absolutely needed for our men 
and women who are serving America today.
  If we yield to the House's $975 million, the VA will not be able to 
build any of the new clinics our veterans have been promised. That 
means inconvenience and less access to care for the people who have 
sacrificed for our country. That is not what we promised our veterans. 
This is a critical priority.
  We have a huge problem right now in this fiscal year 2005. Secretary 
Nicholson has made it very clear that the VA is at least $1 billion 
short this year. My colleagues know I have been here since the 
beginning of the year warning that this problem goes much deeper. Go 
out to any of your VA facilities and talk to any veterans who are 
trying to get access and Members will know as I do that veterans are 
waiting today 3 years for surgery.
  The Associated Press reported in the papers today that the Army 
National Guard is having trouble recruiting the soldiers it needs.
  I ask unanimous consent to have that article printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [From the Associated Press]

              National Guard Misses Recruiting Goal Again

       Washington (AP).--The Army National Guard, a cornerstone of 
     the U.S. force in Iraq, missed its recruiting goal for at 
     least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 19,000 
     soldiers below its authorized strength, military officials 
     said Monday.
       The Army Guard was seeking 5,032 new soldiers in June but 
     signed up only 4,337, a 14% shortfall, according to 
     statistics released Monday by the Pentagon. It is more than 
     10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date goal of almost 45,000 
     recruits, and has missed its recruiting target during at 
     least 17 of the last 18 months.
       ``The recruiting environment remains difficult in terms of 
     economic conditions and alternatives,'' the Army said in a 
     statement released Monday. ``We are concerned about meeting 
     the fiscal year 2005 recruiting missions, but we are 
     confident that our recruiting initiatives will take hold and 
     the American public will respond.''
       Jack Harrison, a spokesman for the National Guard Bureau, 
     said that despite the shortfall, the service is still able to 
     meet its commitments to the Pentagon as well as to state 
     governors, who call on the Guard during disasters and other 
     emergencies.
       Some governors have complained about shortages of troops 
     and equipment in their Guard units, prompting the Guard to 
     set a goal of keeping half of each state's Guard forces at 
     home at any given time.
       The Pentagon has already significantly reduced its use of 
     all Guard and reserve forces in the last two years. In April 
     2003, during the height of the Iraq invasion, some 224,000 of 
     them across all the services were mobilized for all federal 
     missions both at home and overseas; that figure now stands at 
     138,000, according to Pentagon statistics.
       Harrison acknowledged the heavy use of the Guard in 
     missions in Iraq and Afghanistan has affected recruiting 
     efforts, but noted that the service is ahead of its goals in 
     retaining soldiers who have the option to get out.
       ``We have folks that are coming back from long periods of 
     time in Iraq and Afghanistan who are reenlisting,'' he said.
       Guard troops make up more than one-third of the soldiers in 
     Iraq, numbering six brigades plus a division headquarters. In 
     the next rotation of troops, to take place over the next two 
     years, the Guard's portion of the total force in Iraq is 
     expected to drop substantially as newly reorganized active-
     duty Army units come online and take up more duties there, 
     officials said.
       In total, the Army Guard has about 331,000 soldiers, 94.5% 
     of its authorized strength of 350,000, officials said.
       Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Ellen Krenke said the Army 
     Guard last made its monthly goal in September 2004, when it 
     exceeded its target by 27 recruits. The last time it made its 
     goal before that was December 2003.
       Harrison, however, said the Army Guard had not met its 
     monthly recruiting goal for 20 straight months, since October 
     2003. Officials could not immediately explain the 
     discrepancy. The Army Guard also missed its annual recruiting 
     goals for 2003 and 2004, Krenke said. The entire Army is 
     suffering from recruiting problems, but the other components 
     of the service--the active-duty force and the Reserve--made 
     their goals for June. Both, however, remain well behind their 
     annual goals, which they measure from October 2004 to 
     September 2005.
       The regular Army has recruited 47,121 soldiers, or 86% of 
     its goal of 54,935 for this point in the year. It is trying 
     to reach 80,000 by the end of September. Officials are 
     becoming less hopeful they will make it, even though the 
     summer is considered the high season for recruiting, as 
     recent high school graduates look for jobs.
       To deal with the problem, the Army has increased the number 
     of recruiters in its ranks, and augmented incentives for 
     those signing up.
       ``We think these adjustments will begin to take hold in the 
     upcoming months,'' the Army statement said.
       The Army Reserve has recruited 15,540 soldiers, or 79% of 
     its goal of 19,753 at this point in the year.
       All three components of the Army are ahead on their efforts 
     to retain current soldiers. Officials credit that to a desire 
     on the part of the troops to finish the mission of making 
     Iraq a stable democracy.
       The only other arm of the military that missed its June 
     recruiting goal was the Navy Reserve, which fell 8% short and 
     remains the same percentage behind its annual goal of 8,733 
     recruits. The active Navy, Air Force and Marines made their 
     monthly goals, and are at or ahead of their year-to-date 
     targets, the Pentagon said.
       The Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve and Marine Corps 
     Reserve made their June goals; of those, the Air Force 
     Reserve and Marine Reserve are at or ahead of their year-to-
     date goals. The Air National Guard is 17% behind its year-to-
     date goal of 7,619 recruits.
       The Air Force and Navy are seeing far less action in Iraq 
     and Afghanistan than their counterparts in the ground combat 
     forces of the Army and Marines, who have suffered most of the 
     casualties.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, that article states:

       The Army National Guard . . . missed its recruiting goal 
     for at least the ninth straight month in June and is nearly 
     19,000 soldiers below its authorized strength, military 
     officials said Monday.

  Further, the Army Guard:

      . . . is more than 10,000 soldiers behind its year-to-date 
     goal of almost 45,000 recruits and has missed its recruiting 
     target during at least 17 of the last 18 months.

  Many factors, as we all know, affect recruiting, but how we care for 
our veterans is absolutely one of them. As George Washington said:

       The willingness with which our young people are likely to 
     serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly 
     proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier 
     wars were treated and appreciated by their country.

  That was George Washington back in 1789. It is still true today.
  We need to show our veterans--today's veterans and those considering 
military service--we will be there for them. If the Senate retreats 
from what we agreed to 2 weeks ago, it will tell potential recruits the 
VA will have a hiring freeze and the VA will not have new clinics and 
we will not be there for them. That is the wrong message to send.
  The Senate agreed our veterans need $1.5 billion. We agreed on a 
bipartisan basis. I am offering this amendment today to make sure there 
is no backtracking and that our veterans get the help they need, they 
deserve, and they were promised. This is a basic American issue we can 
and must all support.
  If Members vote for this amendment, we are giving the VA money to 
lift the hiring freeze to hire the medical staff it needs and to open 
new clinics. We are telling today's soldiers and tomorrow's recruits we 
will be there for them. But if members choose to vote against my 
amendment, they are simply voting to keep their local VA hospital 
overwhelmed and understaffed, telling veterans in your State that they 
will not get the new clinics they were promised. This vote will send a 
strong message to today's veterans and tomorrow's recruits.

[[Page 15581]]

  This Senate needs to make sure we will show those who serve our 
country that we will be there for them just as they have been there for 
us.
  My colleague from Hawaii is here. He has been a tremendous advocate 
for veterans. I thank him for all his work.
  I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank my colleague for her efforts today.
  Mr. President, I rise today to once again address the tremendous 
funding crisis in the VA. I thank my colleague, the Democratic leader, 
Senator Reid, for his determination at this time to ensure that $1.5 
billion is provided without delay. Again, I thank my colleague Senator 
Murray for her efforts as a member of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs.
  While we have consensus in both bodies of Congress that VA is facing 
a tremendous funding shortfall this year, we are lacking consensus on 
how much should be provided this year. The Senate clearly believes that 
$1.5 billion is needed.
  The House, on the other hand, has taken the administration's view 
that only $975 million is needed.
  While I am delighted that the administration has admitted that there 
is a shortfall, I don't believe that we can now put our faith in their 
estimate of what VA needs.
  As I said last night, judging by the supplemental sent forward by the 
President, VA officials are less than generous and, frankly, less than 
accurate.
  The $975 million now proposed by the administration--and carried 
forward by the House--falls way short of addressing all of VA's 
problems. Just examine one part of their estimate--their new costs 
associated with returning service members.
  VA now believes that 103,000 more veterans will be treated this year. 
The cost of treating this kind of patient is $5,437 a year--as 
documented by VA data.
  Yet, the administration wants to now convince Congress that, in fact, 
the cost of treating a patient is less than half of this amount. Again, 
using VA data, the cost of caring for an additional 103,000 returning 
veterans is $560 million and not the $273 million suggested by the 
administration. And other key programs such as readjustment counseling 
and dental care were ignored by the House in the VA supplemental.
  It is imperative that the Senate again send the House a message that 
we intend to provide adequate funds.
  The Senate has already spoken in a clear and bipartisan manner on 
this issue.
  Given the House's work to provide less than the full amount needed, 
it is clear that we have more work to do for this year. This amendment 
reiterates that point.
  The battle for next year's funding will be upon on us shortly, but we 
need to shore up hospital and clinic operations today.
  I am hopeful that we all learned a clear lesson from this experience, 
that talking with health care providers in VA hospitals and with the 
veterans service organizations is invaluable. They told us what was 
really going on months ago. They are continuing their call for full 
funding for VA now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Texas is recognized for the time in opposition.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Is there a time limit?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Each side controls 15 minutes. There is 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining controlled by the Senator from Washington and 14 
minutes remaining controlled by the majority leader.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I commend Senator Murray, Senator 
Akaka, and all Members who have worked together with Senator Feinstein 
and myself on this veterans issue.
  I spent last Thursday with Veterans' Administration Secretary 
Nicholson. I am very pleased Secretary Nicholson has done so much to 
address this issue once he determined from an audit of the agency that 
we were not going to get through 2005 for the Veterans' Administration 
without taking from maintenance funds and other funds to cover our 
operating expenditures. The Secretary could have tried to put this 
Band-Aid on, but he did not. Secretary Nicholson came right out and 
said we do not have enough for 2005. We have models that show us what 
the growth rate for service in the Veterans' Administration would be. 
The models show about 2.3 percent. That has been the norm throughout 
the last number of years. But in fact the growth rate is 5 percent. So 
Secretary Nicholson, Josh Bolton, at the Office of Management and 
Budget, and the President himself said we are not going to put a Band-
Aid on the Veterans' Administration.
  Senator Murray saw this coming early on. She did believe there were 
more veterans coming into the system from what she was hearing in the 
field, and the Veterans' Administration at that time did not see the 
model that was not working. But when they did, they stepped up to the 
plate. They have now come back with numbers that are higher than the 
$975 million that has been put in an emergency appropriation on the 
House side just for 2005. Now, our $1.5 billion that I intend to 
support is to be spent this year or going into next year if necessary. 
I am going to support this amendment and, in fact, Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the Murray amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHINSON. I do want to say we are continuing to push the ball, 
but this is not where I want it to end. What I hope we would be able to 
do, once we talk in a little more detail to the Veterans' 
Administration Secretary and to Mr. Bolton at the OMB, is to go ahead 
and pass the emergency supplemental for 2005 that will be more than 
$975 million, probably more in the range of $1.2 billion or $1.27 
billion for 2005, and then come in with another supplemental from OMB 
to the budget that we would put into our 2006 appropriation, because 
Senator Feinstein and I are the chairman and ranking member of Veterans 
Appropriations. Senator Murray sits on that committee as well. And we 
want to do 2006 the right way. We already, through the cooperation of 
the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the ranking member, 
Senator Cochran and Senator Byrd, added $1.3 billion to what was in the 
President's original request. I believe the President will agree to 
come in with another add to that of $1.6 billion or so. So I think if 
we can continue to work together as we have been, we will have a more 
definitive answer, but I do not think we ought to stop with what 
Senator Murray is trying to do until we do come to the agreement to 
solve this problem both for 2005 and for 2006 in the most responsible 
way.
  So I am very happy to cosponsor the amendment knowing we hopefully 
will finish the emergency supplemental before this bill actually makes 
it to the President. That would be the goal of all of us, I believe--to 
have the emergency for 2005 passed this week or at the earliest 
possible moment and send it to the President so that money becomes 
available.
  In the meantime, I know the Veterans' Administration is not turning 
anyone away. They are not stopping any dirt from flying for the clinics 
that are in the process of being built and the hospitals that are on 
the drawing boards. I know the sincerity of Secretary Nicholson, having 
traveled with him on Thursday and seeing how much he cares about our 
veterans getting the best care. This is a decorated Vietnam war 
veteran. He is a man who graduated from West Point and knows the 
veterans community very well.
  So with that, Mr. President, I am very appreciative of Senator Murray 
bringing this matter to everyone's attention. With Senator Akaka, we 
all serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee as well as the Veterans 
Appropriations Committee. And speaking of that, Senator Craig, the 
chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, has been a real leader 
here as well in trying

[[Page 15582]]

to work this through. I think all of us intend to work on a bipartisan 
basis, Senator Feinstein and myself on the appropriations side, Senator 
Craig and Senator Akaka on the Veterans' Committee side, Senator Murray 
as the leader in bringing this to everyone's attention before it became 
a fact.
  I think we have the nucleus here, working with the administration, to 
do the right thing and to do it in the right way. I think Secretary 
Nicholson is to be commended for stepping up to the plate and working 
with Josh Bolton to do that right thing. There will be no dollar, no 
dime spared in treating our veterans. It is a part of our war on 
terror, to make sure those coming home do have the care and service 
they need. In this war we are seeing many more injuries. That is one of 
the reasons the tables were skewed, the models that have been used for 
the future. We have fewer deaths in this kind of conflict on a normal 
basis, but we have more injuries. And that means we are going to have 
to take care of these people because they have been taking care of us. 
We intend to do that and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. I 
thank Senator Murray, Senator Akaka, Senator Craig, and Senator 
Feinstein for taking the lead on the Senate side, working with the 
administration, and I think the veterans can be assured the right thing 
will be done and this is one more step to make that happen.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from 
Washington for raising this issue again. Before the Fourth of July 
recess, the Senate passed this amendment 96 to 0 showing this body's 
united commitment to our Nation's veterans.
  We worked hard with our colleagues across the aisle to ensure that 
the Veterans' Administration's shortfall in Fiscal Year 2005 was 
addressed by passing a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental.
  I was disappointed that the House of Representatives did not follow 
our lead and instead passed a nonemergency $975 million supplemental 
appropriations.
  I understand that the administration will be submitting a Budget 
amendment, shortly to address the Fiscal Year 2006 needs of the 
Veterans' Administration and I look forward to working with Chairman 
Hutchison to ensure that adequate resources are available for veterans 
health care next year.
  In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to support the Murray 
amendment which addresses this year's shortfall and reaffirms our 
commitment to our veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington controls 2\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much does the other side control?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I would ask if the other side would mind, 
if they have no other speakers, yielding Senator Durbin 2\1/2\ minutes 
of their time or if they want to continue.
  Mrs. HUTCHINSON. I would give some time away, but I would like to be 
able to respond. I don't know, because I haven't been on the floor, 
what the Senator's comments are going to be. If I could reserve a 
couple of minutes also for rebuttal if I need to, the other side is 
welcome to go forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Illinois 
is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. I say to the Senator from Texas, she will not have to 
rebut any of these remarks because we agree completely. The good thing 
is we are talking about money for the Veterans' Administration. This is 
not a hard call. We have veterans returning who need help. Millions of 
Americans have been promised they will have a helping hand once they 
serve our country and need assistance in the VA system, and so we try 
to guess how many dollars will be needed to meet that obligation. It is 
a very tough calculation, tougher still because we have soldiers coming 
back from Iraq and Afghanistan and other places who are seriously 
wounded, as the Senator from Texas has just mentioned, and they, of 
course, are our high priority.
  Senator Murray came to the floor months ago and said the 
administration is not making an appropriate calculation of how much 
money this is going to cost. We are going to end up having more 
veterans needing assistance than money to take care of them. For a long 
time she was a lonely voice, offering amendments to appropriations 
bills that were being defeated. It turns out 2 or 3 weeks ago she was 
proven right and the Veterans' Administration came forward and said, We 
need more money; we don't have enough.
  The most positive thing that occurred was immediately Senator Larry 
Craig, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Senator Murray 
came together and said, Now let's deal with this on a bipartisan basis, 
and the Senate did, putting $1.5 billion in emergency funding for the 
Veterans' Administration.
  That is the good news. The bad news is the message did not get across 
the Rotunda to the House. They decided they were going to cut that 
amount to $900 million, almost in half.
  You think to yourself: What are they doing here? Aren't they hearing 
the same things we are hearing? The Veterans' Administration needs the 
money, the veterans need the money.
  So our message is not just to the veterans that we stand behind you. 
Our message is to the House of Representatives: Stand behind us, join 
us in the battle for $1.5 billion to make sure we keep our promise to 
veterans.
  What we are doing, when we are not debating this, is the Homeland 
Security bill in light of terrorism and threats to the United States. 
As Senator Stabenow of Michigan has said, we need to be prepared and 
protected both at home and around the world. If we are going to be 
protected, we need the best military in the world with our support. 
This money for the Veterans' Administration keeps that promise to our 
soldiers and to our veterans.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Illinois, and I also thank my 
colleague from Texas.
  Mr. President, I saw the Washington Post article yesterday on ``VA 
Hospital in Texas Fights to Stay Open.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, July 11, 2005]

                VA Hospital in Texas Fights to Stay Open

                           (By Sylvia Moreno)

       Waco, TX.--Building 7 on the campus of the Veterans Affairs 
     Medical Center here is called Blind Rehab, a special unit for 
     aging vets who have macular degeneration or diabetes-induced 
     vision problems.
       But this past year, Blind Rehab began to see a new type of 
     patient: veterans barely past their 20th birthdays, blinded 
     by gunshot wounds and bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq.
       ``These soldiers now have flak jackets and armor that 
     protect their bodies and keep them alive, but we see 
     traumatic limb injuries and traumatic head injuries,'' said 
     Stan Poel, chief of Blind Rehabilitation Services at the Waco 
     hospital. ``Those are the things that are presenting a 
     challenge to the VA.''
       These are also the kinds of patients the Department of 
     Veterans Affairs now projects will flood an already overtaxed 
     and underfunded health care system that treated more than 5 
     million veterans last year.
       ``Our number one priority is returning service members from 
     the combat theater . . . and to provide world-class health 
     care to veterans, as well as benefits,'' Veterans Affairs 
     Secretary Jim Nicholson said after a tour late last week of 
     the 127-acre Waco campus, whose neighbors to the west include 
     the huge Army base of Fort Hood, with 41,000 soldiers, and 
     President Bush's ranch in Crawford.
       ``The increase in demand for our services from what we 
     projected is up 126 percent,'' he said. ``We have to 
     obviously be prepared to ramp up.''
       The-Waco hospital, with its well-kept pre- World War II 
     red-brick, red-roof-tiled buildings, has provided health care 
     for veterans in central Texas for 73 years. Now it is on the 
     chopping block, scheduled along with 17 other VA hospitals to 
     be closed or downsized as part of an agency plan to 
     restructure the

[[Page 15583]]

     health care system. A 1999 government study found the VA was 
     spending $1 million a day on buildings it did not need, and 
     in 2003 a government commission recommended closing older, 
     underused hospitals, including the one in Waco. The Waco 
     facility is part of the Central Texas Veterans Health Care 
     System, which also includes a hospital in Temple and 
     outpatient clinics in Austin and five other communities.
       For the past two years, Waco officials, residents and 
     veterans groups have been fighting back, emphasizing the 
     importance of the facility's specialized blind 
     rehabilitation, psychiatric and post-traumatic stress 
     disorder units; the large and aging veteran population (Texas 
     has the third-largest population of veterans in the country 
     with 1.7 million, a third of whom received VA health care 
     last year); and, now, the wave of veterans from the wars in 
     Afghanistan and Iraq who will need its services.
       ``They guaranteed so many years ago that they will take 
     care of [veterans], and I would say they're pretty much going 
     back on their word,'' said Ron Peterson, 35, an engineer with 
     the 91st Engineer Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division at Fort 
     Hood. Peterson used a day off last week to provide a 
     motorcycle escort for Nicholson's visit to Waco and to 
     register his support for keeping the hospital there open.
       Peterson was deployed to Iraq from January 2004 to this 
     February. He was wounded twice, receiving the Bronze Star, 
     two Purple Hearts and an Army Commendation Medal for valor in 
     combat
       ``They're not ready for everybody coming back,'' Peterson 
     said. ``They're trying to shut everything down and they're 
     going to need PTSD units. The guys aren't seeing the things 
     they saw in Vietnam, but they're seeing a lot of stuff.''
       This year, the post-traumatic stress disorder in-patient 
     unit in Waco has seen more than 75 new cases of veterans from 
     Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 15-bed blind rehab unit, which 
     has helped 106 blind veterans this year learn skills such as 
     how to use a walking cane, cook and negotiate e-mail, has a 
     wait list of 73.
       ``This is the best PTSD facility in the union, and these 
     [guys] are trying to close it down,'' said Bill Mahon, a 
     Vietnam War veteran and the McLennan County veterans service 
     officer. In the past two years, Mahon has organized several 
     motorcycle rides to the gate of Bush's nearby ranch to 
     protest the proposed closing. ``This is not their hospital; 
     it's our hospital.''
       Nationwide this fiscal year, 250,000 new patients--40 
     percent of them veterans from Afghanistan and Iraq and 60 
     percent of them veterans from other eras--have entered the VA 
     health care system, Nicholson said.
       As Congress works to eliminate an emergency funding 
     shortfall this year of at least $1 billion and a projected 
     shortage in the VA health care budget of more than $1 billion 
     in the coming fiscal year, VA hospitals have felt the impact 
     nationwide.
       According to documents released at recent meetings of the 
     House and Senate Veterans Affairs committees, the VA hospital 
     in White River Junction, Vt., was forced to shut its 
     operating rooms temporarily because of a lack of maintenance 
     funds to repair a broken heating, ventilation and air 
     conditioning system. Hospitals in Arkansas, Oklahoma, 
     Mississippi, Louisiana and eastern Texas stopped scheduling a 
     appointments for many veterans. The VA medical center in San 
     Diego, with a waiting list of 750 veterans, diverted $3.5 
     million in maintenance funds to partially cover operating 
     expenses and delayed filling 131 vacancies for three months 
     to cover operating expenses. The Portland, Ore., hospital 
     delayed non-emergency surgery for at least six months, and 
     7,000 veterans who use the VA facility in Bay Pines, Fla., 
     are waiting longer than 30 days for a primary care 
     appointment.
       ``I'm going to go to a civilian doctor rather than wait 70 
     to 90 days,'' Douglas McKee, 63, of Chilton, Tex., said as he 
     left the Waco facility on Thursday afternoon. McKee, who said 
     he was disabled by a mine explosion in Vietnam while serving 
     with the 173rd Airborne Brigade, had just learned that his 
     regular doctor was on duty in Iraq and that he could not get 
     an appointment with a new physician until mid-October. He 
     would also have to wait for some of his prescription refills, 
     he said.
       ``We laid our life on the line and then got blowed up and 
     then you come here and you get turned away. That ain't 
     fair,'' said McKee, who suffers from a variety of ailments 
     and uses a walker to get around. ``And then they got all the 
     kids coming back from Iraq.''
       Nicholson assured hospital employees and veterans gathered 
     for his visit that no decision had been made about the 
     facility's fate and that he had ``no predispositions about 
     this at all.''
       Nicholson, who visited the facility at the request of Sen. 
     Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), said he was concerned about 
     the 300,000 square feet of vacant space at the Waco VA. A 
     local advisory group suggested filling the space with 
     nonprofit organizations such as the Salvation Army, which 
     could tailor their services to veterans' needs.
       Nicholson will make his decision about the Waco VA early 
     next year, including a proposal to transfer its psychiatric 
     and post-traumatic stress disorder services to Austin and 
     Temple. He warned those gathered that his visit should not be 
     interpreted as ``an interception of the process.'' And he 
     complimented the hospital for its track record. ``This is the 
     way the American people want veterans to be taken care of,'' 
     he said.
       As for the hospital's fate, Nicholson said, ``the binding 
     question is what's going to be the best for our vets? . . . 
     They did what was best for us and for our country.''

  Mrs. MURRAY. I know the Senator from Texas was there and was quite 
startled to hear about the blind rehab unit at the Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center in Texas and how they have been serving older veterans, 
but in fact this year they are begining to see a new type of patient--
veterans in their early 20s with macular degeneration or diabetes-
induced vision problems. I think it goes to the point of exactly why we 
are seeing such a tremendous shortfall in the VA today--because of the 
types of injuries our returning soldiers are having.
  I welcome my colleague's cosponsorship, and I agree we do need to 
look at 2006. We will work with her and the VA Secretary and all 
Senators on making up the shortfall. But we are here today with the 
Murray amendment because there has been some confusion in the Senate 
about how much aid we are going to send to the Veterans Department. We 
have heard a lot of numbers thrown around and a lot of discussion, but 
I think why I am here today and why it is so critical is because in the 
early morning hours just before our July 4 recess, some Senate leaders 
moved we lay down in deference to the House of Representatives' lower 
number.
  I think in the Senate we need to say there is no confusion. On a 
unanimous vote we supported $1.5 billion. The Appropriations Committee, 
hours after the House tried to limit funding for veterans, unanimously 
affirmed our support for $1.5 billion and now the Senate has an 
opportunity before us to tell our veterans we will do all we can, all 
we promised, to support and care for them when they return home.
  Make no mistake, this Department needs the money. Even before the 
dramatic, unconscionable shortfall at the Department was revealed, 
veterans around the country were facing long lines and crumbling 
facilities. We know the promised clinics are not there, and we know the 
soldiers returning with posttraumatic syndrome are not being served. 
The money is critical. I ask the Senate this morning to say we are 
sticking with the $1.5 billion shortfall.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be 
added as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield the 
remainder of our time to Senator Murray.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is a total of 2 minutes remaining.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from Texas.
  I remind all of our colleagues we should not be nickling and diming 
the Department of Veterans Affairs today. For all of us who have been 
out on the ground visiting our VA clinics, talking to our soldiers who 
are returning, it is very clear this war has created a need and demand 
for us to be there. When we call up our soldiers, we promise them we 
will be there for health care. It is not right that we sit in hearings 
and community meetings as I did last week and hear veterans saying: I 
finally gave up; I went and paid for health care out of my own pocket. 
That is not what we promised them and that is not a way to get new 
soldiers which we obviously need to do today.
  A train wreck is coming in 2006. I will work with all of my 
colleagues. I know the administration is looking at sending over a 
budget amendment and I agree we need to find the money. But for right 
now we need to pass an emergency supplemental. This Senate has gone on 
record in the full Appropriations Committee and in this full body and 
we should have no backtracking. That is why we are voting on this

[[Page 15584]]

amendment today, once again, to reaffirm our commitment and tell all 
the men and women who have served us both in this war and in previous 
wars that we will be there for them.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). The Senator from Texas has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second. The yeas and nays are 
ordered.
  All time having expired, the hour of 12 o'clock having arrived, the 
question is on agreeing to the Murray amendment. The yeas and nays have 
been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant journal clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the 
Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Mississippi 
(Mr. Lott), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. 
Alexander), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have 
voted ``yea.''
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski) 
is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 174 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Alexander
     Lott
     Mikulski
     Sessions
     Thune
  The amendment (No. 1129) was agreed to.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for 6 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________