[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5495-5496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           RISK-BASED FUNDING

  Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. President, I wish to speak this morning in favor of 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment No. 335 and highlight how important it is 
that our homeland security grants be awarded on the basis of risk.
  As we have debated and discussed on the floor of this Chamber on 
numerous occasions, the smartest and most pragmatic approach to funding 
for homeland security grants is based on the level of risk faced by 
communities, not by some arbitrary formula.
  It is a simple approach. Places that face more risk and are more 
attractive targets to terrorist attacks should receive more funding. 
This was the approach articulated and supported by the 9/11 Commission, 
and it is one that this body should have approved.
  As we all know, the way homeland security funds are distributed now 
reflects a political compromise. It does not reflect a realistic 
assessment of our Nation's security needs. Some money will be based on 
risk, but all States are guaranteed of receiving some funding.
  It makes very good sense to create a structure whereby first 
responder funds are allocated based on risk of a terrorist attack. In 
my home State of Florida, we have ports, tourism, and population 
centers. We have major cities, such as Miami, Tampa, and Jacksonville, 
all with stadiums, professional sports franchises, and busy downtowns.
  As a former mayor of Orange County, I recognize the critical need for 
risk-based funding of homeland security grants.
  If you look at the population of Orlando, it appears to be a 
moderately sized city. However, if one considers the interests of the 
greater Orlando area with tourist attractions, amusement parks, and 
resorts, at any one time, there can be millions of Americans and 
foreign visitors in the Orlando area.
  According to the Orlando County Visitors Bureau, roughly 45 million 
visitors come to central Florida each year--45 million visitors. There 
is no way our current funding system accounts for this reality. Across 
Florida, we have significant roadways, railways, and some of the 
busiest ports in the world. We are told all are potential targets, but 
our current method of funding does not reflect the needs of my State or 
that of many other States. We need to correct this problem. The 
American people expect us to correct this problem. That is why I am 
supporting the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.
  Following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this amendment 
would, first of all, ensure that homeland security grants are allocated 
on a risk-based formula built on assessment of threat, vulnerability, 
and consequence to the maximum extent practicable. Secondly, it would 
assure a guaranteed minimum funding for homeland security grants, 
without turning the program into another grant system for 
redistributing Federal funds arbitrarily. The amendment also directs 
the DHS Secretary to consider transient and tourist populations as risk 
targets for deciding the disbursal of funding for homeland security 
grants. Finally, it sets minimum performance requirements for homeland 
security grants and a 2-year audit cycle for grant recipients by the 
DHS inspector general.
  Under this amendment, every State would continue to receive some 
funding; it is just that now the cities and States most at risk would 
receive most of the funding. This amendment certainly makes sense to 
Florida's new Governor, Charlie Crist, who believes it to be the best 
option for Florida. I feel the same way. I know other Senate colleagues 
of mine believe Senators Feinstein and Cornyn have put together a 
commonsense amendment that helps the cities and States most at risk. I 
will vote in favor of this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to 
do the same.
  Our Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, also thinks it 
a prudent move and said as much during a debate on the homeland 
security grants during 2005. Secretary Chertoff remarked then:

       Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives 
     us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are 
     allocated in a prioritized and objective manner.

  What this means is communities across this Nation--whether they are 
large or small; whether or not they would appear to be high-risk 
terrorist targets--are receiving precious resources that are going to 
local law enforcement agencies so they can upgrade their equipment and 
other resources. We should not be allocating, in some formulaic method, 
the limited money set aside for first responders. We need to take a 
more direct approach.
  There is a reason terrorists struck New York and Washington on 
September 11: They wanted to strike two of our most powerful cities. 
They wanted to cripple our Government and sabotage our economy. It is 
for these reasons that cities such as New York and Washington should 
receive homeland security grants that are commensurate with that risk. 
A spending formula does not speak to this basic reality.
  I support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment and ask my colleagues to 
support this amendment as well.
  As we continue this important debate, the heart of our efforts should 
be on making America safer, not rewarding particular communities or 
interest groups. It is disheartening to me that so much of the debate 
thus far has been about granting additional rights to unions. Is this 
going to make us any safer? Is it worth all the time we are spending on 
it? Of course not.
  Rather than debating all aspects of union rights associated with our 
national security, we should be considering some other proposals that 
have been offered, such as increasing penalties for those found to be 
financially supporting the families of suicide bombers or granting 
additional subpoena authority to Federal terrorism investigators so 
they can find individuals who wish to do us harm and then bring them to 
justice. This debate should be about strengthening our national 
security; it should not be about strengthening unions. This should not 
be about political payback; it should be about making America safer. 
Anything less would be a disservice to this body

[[Page 5496]]

and do little to further the safety and security of those we are 
elected to represent.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I 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. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________