[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5522-5534]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe I have 13 minutes; is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 335

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, yesterday I spoke on an amendment we 
offered. It is cosponsored by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, as 
well as Senators Lautenberg, Hutchison, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Obama, 
Menendez, Kerry, Coburn, and Casey. Essentially, what this amendment 
does is provide that more funds will go to States and localities based 
on risk, threat, and vulnerability.
  As you know, Madam President, the 9/11 Commission in their 25th 
recommendation said, ``Homeland security assistance should be based 
strictly on an assessment of risk and

[[Page 5523]]

 vulnerabilities.'' ``And Federal homeland security assistance should 
not remain a program for general revenue sharing.''
  In current law, 40 percent of the money goes to a guaranteed minimum 
allocation--in other words, revenue sharing--and 60 percent is 
allocated based only on risk and effectiveness. The Lieberman-Collins 
bill--and I thank them--changes that. Twenty-four percent of the money 
goes to satisfy this minimum revenue-sharing requirement, and 76 
percent is allocated on risk and effectiveness. That is a major step 
forward. There is no question about that. However, Senator Cornyn and I 
and our cosponsors believe that in this day and age, we have to give 
more money to risk, vulnerability, and threat. Therefore, the formula 
we present in this amendment will give 87.5 percent of the dollars 
based on risk and effectiveness, regardless of where that risk and 
effectiveness is, and 13 percent will go to satisfy guaranteed minimum 
allocation.
  The second point I wish to make is that 35 States would benefit under 
this amendment: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, 
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, 
Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, 
Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
  I believe this is the right way to allocate homeland security 
dollars.
  Do you have the risk? Is there a threat? The President, in his State 
of the Union Message, mentioned how a threat and a terrorist plot 
against the tallest building on the west coast was eradicated. That 
tallest building on the west coast is shown in this picture. It happens 
to be the Library Tower building in Los Angeles--now under a new name, 
but nonetheless ``Library Tower'' is its historic name. This is the 
largest tower on the west coast. There was reportedly a second strike 
by al-Qaida devoted to the west coast. So it seems to me that if there 
is this kind of a threat, the money should go where the threat is.
  States such as New York, California, and Texas have vast 
infrastructures. Terrorists go where the hit is going to be greatest, 
where the infrastructure is--big ports, big petroleum reserves, big 
buildings, big congregations of people--and where they can do the most 
psychological damage.
  So we feel very strongly that this money should have an even stronger 
formula that puts money where the risk and threat actually are.
  I do wish to correct one thing. Someone on the floor, and I don't 
know who, but somebody said Washington, DC, would receive less money 
under this amendment. We do not alter the risk-based distribution of 
the Urban Area Security Initiative Funds--which are called, in the 
vernacular of Washington, UASIF--and that comprises the lion's share of 
homeland security preparedness received in our Capital. Washington 
received nearly $50 million in UASIF funds last year alone. So we do 
not believe Washington would be negatively affected.
  I know Senator Lautenberg wishes to come to the Chamber to speak. May 
I inquire how many minutes of the 13 I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time 
and yield the floor. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, would that it were that easy, as my 
friend from California has said, I would be eager to vote for her 
amendment, but she is assuming that rather than following what the law 
now says, the head of the Department of Homeland Security will use 
discretion always to benefit everybody's State--something we saw does 
not always work, as the people suffered after Katrina.
  Under the amendment of the Senator from California, States that will 
substantially gain are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, 
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, 
Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. The States, however, that 
lose or break even by lowering the all-State minimum for homeland 
security formula grants are these. I hope Senators are listening 
because they are going to be called upon to vote. These are the States 
which lose or break even. They don't receive an additional amount. The 
States that lose or break even by lowering the all-State minimum are 
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, 
District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, 
Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma.
  Madam President, I haven't used my 13 minutes yet, have I? I still 
have a lot more States to name.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I may need it.
  Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, 
Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
  In case anybody missed that, these are the States which will lose if 
my colleagues do not adopt the Leahy-Thomas, et al amendment. These 
States will lose if my colleagues adopt the amendment of the Senator 
from California: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, 
South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, 
Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The Senators from those States, of course, feel 
free to vote any way they want, but should anybody be checking back 
home, they should know what their vote means.
  I hope my colleagues will support the Leahy-Thomas amendment, No. 
333, to restore the minimum allocation for States in the State Homeland 
Security Grant Program from .45 percent, which is proposed by the 
underlying bill, and bring it back to current law. We are not asking 
for an increase but bring it back to current law, which is .75 percent. 
If you don't, the proposed changes in the formula result in the loss of 
millions in homeland security funding for the fire, police and rescue 
departments in small- and medium-sized States. It will also deal a 
crippling blow to dozens of States' efforts to fulfill federally 
mandated multiyear plans to build and to sustain their terrorism 
preparedness.
  What I am saying is, the Federal Government has said: Here, small 
States, cities, communities. Here is what we are saying you have to do. 
Initially, they said: We will give you some money to help. But now we 
are going to say: You still have to do it, but tax your people to do 
it. We don't have the money. We are going to send it to the Iraqi fire 
departments and to the Iraqi police departments. We are going to send 
it to the Iraqi homeland security. We can't spend it on your State.
  As with current law, the State minimum under our amendment would 
continue to apply--and this is important--only to 40 percent of the 
overall funding under this program. The majority of the funds would 
continue to be allocated based on risk assessment criteria, which are 
the funds of several separate discretionary programs the Congress has 
established for solely urban and high-risk areas. A lot of these 
smaller States have voted for these extra amounts for these urban and 
high-risk areas. I think it is a good idea. The majority of the funds 
are not allocated to these smaller States or to areas based on risk 
assessment requirements. The underlying bill now before the Senate 
would reduce the all-State minimum. The House bill reduces it even 
further.
  We know, however, that this is a matter that is going to face the 
conference anyway, and because of these formula differences, there is 
no guarantee that the minimum will not even further be slashed during 
conference. Small- and medium-sized States face

[[Page 5524]]

enormous cuts. With appropriations for formula grants already being cut 
by 60 percent since 2003--$2.3 billion in 2003 to $900 million in 
fiscal year 2007--further reductions to first-responder funding would 
hamper even more these States' efforts. The cuts would be even deeper 
should the President's budget request for next year be approved, since 
he has requested only $250 million for these two important first 
responder grant programs.
  I am almost tempted to tell some of these small States and towns to 
change their names to Baghdad or northern Iraq or something similar to 
that and they will get all the money they want but not if they want to 
defend their own people here in the United States. I have heard the 
argument from urban States, arguing that Federal money to fight 
terrorism is wasted in smaller States. They seem to forget that the 
attacks on 9/11 added to the responsibilities and the risks of all the 
State and local first responders nationwide. The Federal Government has 
called on all of them, and the portion that is allocated to all 
States--again, only a portion of these funds--is part of the Federal 
Government's fulfillment of that directive.
  I hope my colleagues will support my amendment to restore the .75-
percent minimum base and ensure continued support and resources for our 
police, fire, and ambulance services in every State. Homeland security 
is a new responsibility entrusted to our first responders, and this 
program, along with this assurance of basic help--not the special help 
that goes to the large States but the special help that goes where we 
see special needs--but this basic help will make a big difference.
  Madam President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Very quickly. Vote against my amendment, and here are the 
States that lose: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 
Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, 
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, 
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North 
Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming. If you want to vote for my friend from California, the States 
that do gain are: California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, 
Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I believe I have 6 minutes, and I 
would like to use 2 of them.
  I very much disagree with the figures of the distinguished Senator 
from Vermont. We wrote to the Congressional Research Service and asked 
them to compute the grant numbers. They gave us back a document, dated 
February 27, that relates to the two programs funded in this bill. One 
of them is the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the other is 
the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and these are the 
numbers that CRS presents. Actually, Vermont, according to CRS, 
benefits $72,250, according to the Congressional Research Service, as 
do 35 States. I didn't make up these numbers.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the 
memorandum from the Congressional Research Service, which is a straight 
mathematical computation.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               Congressional Research Service,

                                Washington, DC, February 27, 2007.

                               Memorandum

     To: Senator Dianne Feinstein, Attention: Ahmad Thomas.
     From: Steven Maguire, Analyst in Public Finance, Government 
         and Finance Division.
     Subject: DHS Grants to States and Insular Areas Under H.R. 1, 
         S. 4, and S. 608.
       This memorandum responds to your request for a comparison 
     of three legislative proposals: H.R. 1, S. 4 as approved by 
     the Senate Homeland Security Committee, and S. 608. In 
     particular, you asked CRS to estimate how much each state 
     would receive through two programs under each proposal: (1) 
     the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and (2) the 
     Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). All 
     three proposals would lower the minimum grant award that 
     states could receive under current law. S. 608, unlike H.R. l 
     and S. 4, only sets a minimum for funds authorized for SHSGP. 
     You asked CRS, for comparative purposes, to include LETPP 
     funds in the minimum when calculating the state-by-state 
     allocations.
       Note that a third related DHS grant program, the Urban 
     Areas Security Initiative (UASI), is not considered in this 
     memorandum. The total grant amount to each state would change 
     if UASI grant awards were included. However, the information 
     needed to estimate UASI grant awards to each state under the 
     three legislative proposals is not publicly available.
       A question that immediately arises is how proposed changes 
     to the minimum grant awards would affect the aggregate SHSGP 
     and LETPP grant amounts awarded to each state, the District 
     of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the insular areas. Answering 
     that question precisely, however, is problematic because DHS 
     does not disclose the risk and effectiveness scores it 
     assigns to grant applications. Accordingly, we relied on 
     three basic assumptions to generate what we consider 
     responsible ``rough justice'' estimates of grant amounts 
     under the aforementioned approaches:
       Assumption 1. DHS Risk and effectiveness scores for each 
     applicant under the three proposals will equal those for 
     FY2006. This assumption is valid only to the extent that the 
     determinants of risk and effectiveness that pertain to each 
     applicant and the DHS scoring system do not significantly 
     vary from one year to the next.
       Assumption 2. A proxy for each grant recipient's risk and 
     effectiveness score in FY2006 can be found in the ratio of 
     (a) the amount of the recipient's FY2006 total grant that was 
     based on risk and effectiveness to (b) the sum of risk and 
     effectiveness amounts for all recipients. In other words, if 
     one assumes that if a recipient received 5 percent of the 
     total funds available for allocation on the basis of risk and 
     effectiveness in FY2006, then that recipient will receive 5 
     percent of the total funds available for allocation on the 
     basis of risk and effectiveness under S. 608, H.R. 1, and S. 
     4.
       Assumption 3. The total authorization for S. 608 and H.R. 1 
     will match the amount authorized in S. 4, to wit: 
     $913,180,500.


                                 Caveat

       The estimates presented in the following discussion are 
     intended for illustrative purposes only. Actual grant 
     allocations will almost certainly differ from the estimates 
     presented here. In addition, estimates for S. 608, which do 
     not include funds for LETPP in the minimum, are based on the 
     assumption that LETPP funds are included.


                       Calculating the Estimates

       Estimating grants for each eligible recipient involves the 
     following steps, the results of which are shown in Table 1:
       1. Establish the proxies for risk and effectiveness.
       2. Allocate the total available $913,180,500 in proportion 
     to the proxies.
       3. When a recipient's risk and effectiveness allocation is 
     less than the statutory minimum, allocate an additional 
     amount to reach the minimum.
       4. Because this results in a total greater than 
     $913,180,500, proportionally reduce the grants of all 
     recipients in excess of the minimum to prevent exceeding the 
     authorization.
       5. Display the resulting adjusted estimated allocations. .
       Establishing Proxies for Risk and Effectiveness Scores. In 
     FY2006, Congress appropriated a total of $912 million for the 
     SHSGP and LETPP programs--40 percent ($365 million) was 
     allocated to satisfy the minimum grant award requirements for 
     eligible recipients and the remaining 60 percent ($547 
     million) was allocated based on risk and effectiveness. 
     Examination of column (b) in Table 1 shows, for example, that 
     California received 15.18 percent of the $547 million; New 
     York, 8.52 percent; Texas, 8.05 percent; and Florida, 6.82 
     percent. These percentages and the corresponding 
     percentage for each grant recipient serve as a proxy for 
     each jurisdiction's risk-and-effectiveness score for the 
     CRS estimated allocations under S. 608, H.R. 1, and S. 4.
       Estimating Risk and Effectiveness. H.R. 1 and S. 4 would 
     allocate total SHSGP and LETPP amounts by risk and assessment 
     subject to statutory minimums--lower than under existing law. 
     In order to estimate the risk and effectiveness allocations 
     for each eligible jurisdiction, we multiply the proxy 
     percentage discussed above by the total authorization of 
     $913,180,500. For comparative purposes, as you instructed, 
     CRS used the same methodology for S. 608.
       Meeting the Minimums. As noted earlier, existing law sets 
     two minimum amounts based on the total appropriation: 0.75 
     percent per state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, 
     0.25 percent for other U.S. insular areas. S. 608 would 
     ensure a minimum of

[[Page 5525]]

     0.25 percent per state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto 
     Rico and 0.08 percent for other insular areas. In contrast, 
     S. 4 would ensure a minimum of 0.45 percent per state, the 
     District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The other U.S. insular 
     areas would be guaranteed the same 0.08 percent. Under H.R. 
     1, however, there would be three minimum amounts based on the 
     total appropriation: 0.45 percent for international border 
     states (18 states); 0.25 percent for states without an 
     international border (32 states), the District of Columbia, 
     and Puerto Rico; and 0.08 percent for the other U.S. insular 
     areas. With an authorization of $913,180,500, these minimums 
     would be $4,109,312 and $2,282,951 for the two categories of 
     states, respectively, and $730,544 for insular areas.
       The last column of Table 1, column (f), compares S. 608 to 
     S. 4. A positive amount in column (f) indicates that the 
     state would receive more under S. 608 than under S. 4.
       For a complete explanation of the methodology used to 
     redistribute funds so that all jurisdictions receive the 
     required minimum, and the total authorization is not 
     exceeded, see CRS report RL33859, Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland 
     Security Grant Program, H.R. 1 and S. 4: Description and 
     Analysis, by Shawn Reese and Steven Maguire.
       If you have any questions about this memorandum, please 
     call me on extension 7-7841 or send an e-mail to 
     [email protected].

   TABLE 1.--COMPARISON OF S. 608, H.R. 1, AND S. 4 ASSUMING A $913,180,500 AUTHORIZATION FOR SHSGP AND LETPP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Estimated post-adjustment allocations
                                          FY2006 share ------------------------------------------
              Jurisdiction                of risk and                                  S. 4 as     S. 608* less
                                         effectiveness     S. 608*       H.R. 1     amended Feb.       S. 4
                                            (Percent)                                 15, 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................          1.37    $12,319,320   $12,173,119   $11,988,972       $330,348
Alaska.................................          0.15      2,282,951     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Arizona................................          1.48     13,336,170    13,232,207    12,961,248        374,922
Arkansas...............................          0.19      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
California.............................         15.18    136,342,240   134,446,429   130,575,288      5,766,952
Colorado...............................          1.61     14,533,429    14,354,975    14,106,024        427,405
Connecticut............................          1.13     10,154,413    10,039,748     9,918,964        235,449
Delaware...............................          0.60      5,414,579     5,368,960     5,386,903         27,676
D.C....................................          0.10      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Florida................................          6.82     61,308,537    60,448,703    58,830,723      2,477,814
Georgia................................          3.28     29,474,566    29,078,462    28,392,210      1,082,356
Hawaii.................................          0.17      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Idaho..................................          0.86      7,776,296     7,753,324     7,645,093        131,203
Illinois...............................          5.56     49,959,177    49,264,671    47,978,868      1,980,309
Indiana................................          1.66     14,910,648    14,726,698    14,466,707        443,941
Iowa...................................          1.12     10,121,611    10,007,425     9,887,601        234,010
Kansas.................................          1.23     11,056,458    10,928,653    10,781,467        274,991
Kentucky...............................          1.46     13,139,360    12,981,213    12,773,065        366,295
Louisiana..............................          2.54     22,865,040    22,565,218    22,072,415        792,625
Maine..................................          0.14      2,282,951     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Maryland...............................          1.31     11,827,296    11,688,262    11,518,515        308,781
Massachusetts..........................          2.76     24,816,737    24,488,484    23,938,558        878,179
Michigan...............................          3.69     33,164,749    32,771,939    31,920,631      1,244,118
Minnesota..............................          0.26      2,396,830     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,712,482)
Mississippi............................          0.22      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Missouri...............................          3.06     27,506,469    27,139,035    26,510,385        996,084
Montana................................          0.17      2,282,951     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Nebraska...............................          1.08      9,711,591     9,603,377     9,495,554        216,037
Nevada.................................          1.00      8,973,555     8,876,092     8,789,870        183,685
New Hampshire..........................          0.11      2,282,951     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
New Jersey.............................          1.80     16,222,713    16,019,650    15,721,257        501,456
New Mexico.............................          0.18      2,282,951     4,109,312     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
New York...............................          8.52     76,512,088    75,487,831    73,367,819      3,144,269
North Carolina.........................          2.47     22,176,206    21,886,418    21,413,777        762,429
North Dakota...........................          0.69      6,234,620     6,234,105     6,170,997         63,623
Ohio...................................          2.73     24,587,125    24,319,267    23,719,012        868,113
Oklahoma...............................          1.43     12,844,146    12,690,299    12,490,791        353,355
Oregon.................................          0.23      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Pennsylvania...........................          3.11     27,949,291    27,632,456    26,933,796      1,015,495
Rhode Island...........................          0.11      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
South Carolina.........................          1.33     12,007,705    11,866,043    11,691,016        316,689
South Dakota...........................          0.13      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Tennessee..............................          0.26      2,364,029     2,362,848     4,109,312     (1,745,283)
Texas..................................          8.05     72,264,278    71,301,900    69,306,214      2,958,064
Utah...................................          0.17      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
Vermont................................          0.71      6,431,429     6,428,048     6,359,179         72,250
Virginia...............................          1.50     13,516,579    13,352,937    13,133,748        382,831
Washington.............................          2.77     24,882,340    24,610,182    24,001,285        881,055
West Virginia..........................          1.14     10,269,219    10,152,882    10,028,738        240,481
Wisconsin..............................          1.50     13,483,777    13,377,664    13,102,384        381,393
Wyoming................................          0.12      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      U.S..............................         99.24    904,815,934   904,861,958   903,128,069      1,687,865
                                        ========================================================================
Puerto Rico............................          0.11      2,282,951     2,282,951     4,109,312     (1,826,361)
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      U.S. & P.R.......................         99.35    907,098,886   907,144,910   907,237,381       (138,495)
                                        ========================================================================
Virgin Islands.........................          0.07        730,544       730,544       730,544              0
Am. Samoa..............................          0.43      3,889,981     3,843,957     3,751,486        138,495
Guam...................................          0.07        730,544       730,544       730,544              0
N. M. Islands..........................          0.07        730,544       730,544       730,544              0
                                        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      All Areas Total..................        100.00    913,180,500   913,180,500   913,180,500             0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS. Caveat: for illustrative purposes only; other estimating methods based on
  different assumptions would yield different results.
 
Note: *8. 608, as introduced, includes only the SHSGP funds for purposes of calculating a minimum. For
  comparative purposes, the calculations in this table assume S. 608 would include LETPP in the minimum when
  allocating an authorized amount of $913,180,500 to each state, territory, and other insular area.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. As I say, I understand there is a basic conflict here 
between small States and big States. There is a basic conflict between 
those who think the money should be spread around and those who believe 
this money should be used based on risk, vulnerability, and threat. I 
am in the latter. If the big threat is in Vermont, I am all for the 
money going to Vermont. I have no problem with that.
  I look at the intelligence and I see the threats as they come in and 
I think the agencies that make the decisions should send the money 
based on their analysis of the intelligence and the threats.
  I do wish to at least give my source, which is the Congressional 
Research Service, for these numbers which show 35 States as 
beneficiaries.
  I know Senator Lautenberg should be here momentarily. I reserve the 
remainder of my time, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Salazar). Who yields time?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter 
from

[[Page 5526]]

the National Criminal Justice Association, in support of the formulas 
in the underlying bill, be printed in the Record.
       There being no objection, the material was ordered to be 
     printed in the Record, as follows:
                                                 National Criminal


                                          Justice Association,

                                    Washington, DC, March 2, 2007.
     Hon. Joseph Lieberman,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Susan Collins,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lieberman and Collins: On behalf of the 
     National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA), I write to 
     express our support for a number of important provisions in 
     the Improving America's Security by Implementing Unfinished 
     Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, or S. 4. 
     NCJA members administer justice assistance grant funding in 
     the states and tribal nations, and state and local criminal 
     justice practitioners from all parts of the criminal and 
     juvenile justice systems. In addition, NCJA provides direct 
     technical assistance and training to state and local homeland 
     security grant administrators for all U.S. states and 
     territories.
       First, thank you for maintaining the Law Enforcement 
     Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) in your bill. The LETPP 
     provides needed support to public safety agencies across the 
     country for terrorism prevention, training and information 
     sharing. As a direct result of the LETPP funding over the 
     past several years, state and local law enforcement agencies 
     have become stronger partners with other homeland security 
     disciplines in the effort to prevent, not just respond to, a 
     terror attack. In addition, the LETPP provides invaluable 
     financial assistance to our state and local law enforcement 
     partners as they address the country's homeland security 
     priorities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. One of 
     the most successful initiatives undertaken by state and local 
     first responders has been the all-source, Intelligence Fusion 
     Centers, funded primarily through the LETPP program. Clearly 
     the LETPP has been a tremendous mechanism by which state and 
     local public safety programs have been built to address the 
     new requirements for all-hazards and terrorism prevention and 
     response.
       Second, we commend the Committee's creation of an Office 
     for the Prevention of Terrorism. As described in the bill, 
     this new office would be a useful point of coordination and 
     support for law enforcement within the Department of Homeland 
     Security. Coordination and information sharing among the 
     federal, state and local law enforcement and public safety 
     agencies is critically important. This new office would serve 
     as a point of liaison and as an advocate for prevention and 
     law enforcement activities, thereby increasing coordination, 
     focusing funding and, ultimately, increasing the safety of 
     our citizens.
       Third, we ask for your continued support for a minimum 
     guarantee for State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) 
     funds. The primary goals of any national homeland security 
     strategy should be to: increase preparedness in our largest 
     urban areas; protect our targets of international 
     significance; and, to increase overall national preparedness. 
     An attack or disruption of our power or water or food supply 
     could occur anywhere. Core foundations of our economy could 
     be crippled from outside one of our major urban areas. States 
     are working hard to protect assets of national importance 
     within their borders and the safety of all our citizens. Only 
     by continuing a fair, balanced and substantial state minimum 
     guarantee can we be assured that all states reach a threshold 
     of preparedness under a national preparedness plan.
       We thank you for your work on this important piece of 
     legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Cabell Cropper,
                                               Executive Director.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to make sure my colleagues 
recognize that under the amendment offered by my distinguished 
colleague and friend from California, that States would have absolutely 
no guarantee at all of minimum funding under the Law Enforcement 
Terrorist and Prevention Program. This is a very important program. It 
has provided needed support to public safety agencies across the 
country for terrorism prevention, training, and information sharing. As 
the direct result of the LETPP funding over the past several years, 
State and local law enforcement agencies have become strong partners 
with homeland security.
  I wish to point out one of the most important uses of funds under 
this program has been to establish with State and local first 
responders all-source intelligence fusion centers that have been funded 
primarily through the LETPP program. Clearly, it has been a very 
successful program, and one of my concerns about the amendment offered 
by my friend from California is she eliminates the minimum under this 
program. That means that potentially a State could receive no funding 
at all under this program.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The time will be charged equally to all controlling time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will proceed and yield myself time.
  The first two amendments, one offered by the Senator from California 
and the second offered by the Senator from Illinois, are an attempt to 
get more funding for the large States at the expense of the smaller 
States, and there is a myth around about the fact that the larger 
States are not being adequately funded. The fact is that under the 
fiscal year 2006 homeland security grant funding, five States--
California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois--received 42 percent 
of the antiterrorism funds, while 20 States received less than 12 
percent cumulatively.
  California received in fiscal year 2006 as much money as the 22 
States at the bottom in funding.
  I wish to thank my staff members for their humility in holding up 
that chart.
  What I am saying is, somebody said the money is being spread across 
the country like peanut butter. No way. There is a lot of peanut butter 
and jelly going to the larger States. They deserve it, but they would, 
by these two amendments, the Feinstein and Obama amendments, would take 
even more money, as the Senator from Vermont quite movingly 
demonstrated in his rollcall of the losing States. Why do the smaller 
States deserve something? Because that is the nature of the enemy. 
Everybody is vulnerable to this terrorist enemy to some degree. We are 
not making this up.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, since we yielded 6 or 7 
minutes to the Intelligence chairman and vice chairman, to add 4 
minutes to the time I was allocated under the initial proposal. It may 
be that we will still be able to vote at 5:30.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Reserving the right to object. The Senator from 
California, I believe, still has time remaining.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed. This will not interfere with the time she 
has reserved for the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. All right. The Senator from California is giving her 
time to me, so I wanted to be sure that time remains.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes, indeed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Here is the point. We know the terrorists on 9/11 
struck New York, Washington, and Washington was probably intended 
again--the plane went down in Pennsylvania. But what was the single 
most devastating terrorist attack in the United States before 9/11? It 
was the bomb at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, but 
Oklahoma City would not benefit from these amendments from the Senators 
from California and Illinois.
  Let's go around the world. In 2001, a plot was uncovered by 
intelligence agencies to attack an American school in Singapore. In 
2002, in Bali, Indonesia, terrorists targeted a discotheque. In 2003, 
terrorists struck a residential compound in Riyahd. In 2004, terrorists 
targeted a school in Beslan. In October 2004, computer disks were 
discovered in Iraq at a known insurgent's home containing detailed 
floor layouts and evacuation routes for plans in various States in the 
United States of America.
  This is the nature of the enemy. This is an inhumane but thinking 
enemy. They will strike where they determine we are most vulnerable. 
That is why we think, as a matter of elemental fairness but also sound 
and strong homeland security, that most of the money ought to go to the 
large States with the most visible, potential terrorist targets, but 
that some minimal amount ought to go to all States.

[[Page 5527]]

  Senator Leahy would do that beyond what the bill does. Senator 
Feinstein and Senator Obama would reduce the amount most of the States 
would get under this proposal from what the committee bill recommends. 
That is why I strongly oppose the first two amendments that will come 
before us at around 5:30.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the 
Feinstein-Cornyn amendment and tell you I must say I do not get it. We 
are talking now about the security of our country. We are talking about 
whether we put the fences up around the most susceptible targets or 
whether we put fences, protective fences, around places in the country 
where there is no threat.
  To every place there is a threat. No matter where you go, you can see 
a place that can be a threat. But where the disease is, that is what 
the hospital is there for. Take those who have the potential for the 
disease. If you use an analogy, you don't start putting the antidote in 
places where the likelihood of catching this disease is not very 
strong.
  We are looking at this amendment and this bill. Thirty-four States, 
besides New Jersey, will have resources taken away. In my State, the 
FBI has determined the 2-mile stretch between the airport, Newark-
Liberty International Airport and Port Newark, is America's most at-
risk area for a terrorist attack. We know that in a moment of an orange 
alert the Prudential Building in Newark has been a specific target of 
terrorists. In fact, in the summer of 2004 only three specific areas 
were identified as potential targets under the orange alert: northern 
New Jersey, New York, and Washington, DC. Yet I have listened to my 
colleagues, and it disturbs me that they trivialize this purchase of 
some trucks in New Jersey. If those trucks were used to take debris out 
of an exploded or damaged area, they would be pretty valuable trucks. 
If there were snow on the ground when an attack took place, it would be 
absolutely essential that we have those trucks.
  We were struck and 700 people from New Jersey died, as did 2,400 
others from other places around the area. We know where the heat is 
when it gets hot. We ought not be dealing out pork. This is not a 
restaurant. We are not talking about pork. We are not talking about 
putting money out there in case there is an attack here or there. We 
know where the attacks take place. They take place in places with high 
density populations such as London or Spain. We know New Jersey is at 
risk. New York is at risk. We know other major cities are at risk. They 
have been identified, and homeland security funds to fight terrorism 
should go to those places.
  Recommendation 25 of the 9/11 Commission report said homeland 
security grants should be distributed based solely on risk. We are 
having a debate here, saying no, the fact that there are risks should 
not count because everybody is at risk. Everybody is at risk but not at 
the same degree.
  I hope our colleagues will respond in a way that is recommended by 
the 9/11 Commission, supported by Secretary Chertoff of the Department 
of Homeland Security, and logic. Logic is on this side.
  I encourage my colleagues to embrace a risk-based approach and 
support the Feinstein-Cornyn-Lautenberg amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, how much time is left to the proponents of 
the various amendments?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut has 2 minutes 
remaining, the senior Senator from Vermont has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the junior Senator from Illinois has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LEAHY. I thought we were voting at 5:30. That time has slipped or 
is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, using part of my remaining time, again I 
would tell my friends, my dear friend, the senior Senator from New 
Jersey and others, we have set aside nearly 60 percent of these funds 
for special purposes, high-threat areas, areas that we determine need 
that money. We are talking about the all-State minimum going to what is 
remaining.
  Again, I hope someone is listening to this debate. You can vote for 
these next two amendments and a few States will gain from them, but if 
you vote for these next two amendments, here are the States that will 
lose or at best break even: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, 
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, 
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, 
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New 
Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma--Mr. President, I haven't used my 13 
minutes yet, have I, because I still have a lot of States to name 
here----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 11 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. I may need it--Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 
Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, 
and Wyoming.
  Without sounding like a poor rendition of Johnny Cash's song ``I Have 
Been Everywhere, Man''--one of my favorites, I might say; he actually 
mentions Brattleboro, VT. If you vote for my amendment, which will be 
the third one, here are the States that do not lose or break even. 
These are the States that will be protected under current funding: 
Alabama, Alaska--these are States I hope will support the amendment of 
the Senator from Vermont, because it is to their State's benefit: 
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of 
Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, 
Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, 
Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, 
Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming--I realize the District of 
Columbia can't vote, but if they could, they would vote with us.
  Mr. President, how much time is remaining to the Senator from Vermont 
or is any time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Nevada.


                           Amendment No. 363

  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to 
send an amendment to the desk, so it becomes pending. I already cleared 
it with both the ranking member and the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Ensign] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 363 to amendment No. 275.

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

   (Purpose: To establish a Law Enforcement Assistance Force in the 
  Department of Homeland Security to facilitate the contributions of 
        retired law enforcement officers during major disasters)

       On page 389, after line 13, add the following:

     SEC. 15__. LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE FORCE.

       (a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish a Law 
     Enforcement Assistance Force to facilitate the contributions 
     of retired law enforcement officers and agents during major 
     disasters.
       (b) Eligible Participants.--An individual may participate 
     in the Law Enforcement Assistance Force if that individual--
       (1) has experience working as an officer or agent for a 
     public law enforcement agency and left that agency in good 
     standing;
       (2) holds current certifications for firearms, first aid, 
     and such other skills determined necessary by the Secretary;
       (3) submits to the Secretary an application, at such time, 
     in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the 
     Secretary may reasonably require, that authorizes the 
     Secretary to review the law enforcement service record of 
     that individual; and

[[Page 5528]]

       (4) meets such other qualifications as the Secretary may 
     require.
       (c) Liability; Supervision.--Each eligible participant 
     shall--
       (1) be protected from civil liability to the same extent as 
     employees of the Department; and
       (2) upon acceptance of an assignment under this section--
       (A) be detailed to a Federal, State, or local government 
     law enforcement agency;
       (B) work under the direct supervision of an officer or 
     agent of that agency; and
       (C) notwithstanding any State or local law requiring 
     specific qualifications for law enforcement officers, be 
     deputized to perform the duties of a law enforcement officer.
       (d) Mobilization.--
       (1) In general.--In the event of a major disaster, the 
     Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Federal, 
     State, and local government law enforcement agencies, may 
     request eligible participants to volunteer to assist the 
     efforts of those agencies responding to such emergency and 
     assign each willing participant to a specific law enforcement 
     agency.
       (2) Acceptance.--If the eligible participant accepts an 
     assignment under this subsection, that eligible participant 
     shall agree to remain in such assignment for a period equal 
     to not less than the shorter of--
       (A) the period during which the law enforcement agency 
     needs the services of such participant;
       (B) 30 days; or
       (C) such other period of time agreed to between the 
     Secretary and the eligible participant.
       (3) Refusal.--An eligible participant may refuse an 
     assignment under this subsection without any adverse 
     consequences.
       (e) Expenses.--
       (1) In general.--Each eligible participant shall be allowed 
     travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, 
     at rates authorized for employees of agencies under 
     subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code, 
     while carrying out an assignment under subsection (d).
       (2) Source of funds.--Expenses incurred under paragraph (1) 
     shall be paid from amounts appropriated to the Federal 
     Emergency Management Agency.
       (f) Termination of Assistance.--The availability of 
     eligible participants of the Law Enforcement Assistance Force 
     shall continue for a period equal to the shorter of--
       (1) the period of the major disaster; or
       (2) 1 year.
       (g) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) the term ``eligible participant'' means an individual 
     participating in the Law Enforcement Assistance Force;
       (2) the term ``Law Enforcement Assistance Force'' means the 
     Law Enforcement Assistance Force established under subsection 
     (a); and
       (3) the term ``major disaster'' has the meaning given that 
     term in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
     and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122).
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out 
     this section.

  Mr. ENSIGN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 335

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, we have a few moments before the vote 
will go off. I gather Senator Obama is going to yield back the time 
remaining to him. I say to my friends, the committee bill reported out 
on a bipartisan vote, 16 to 0, with one abstention, has a balanced 
formula in it that overall would increase homeland security funding to 
all States. We recognize with respect, and I think a sense of reality, 
that all of the States and all of the people of the United States are 
vulnerable in the war against terrorism, and there ought to be some 
minimum amount for our first responders at each State level.
  The two amendments we are going to vote on, therefore, I oppose, 
because they would alter the formula in the bill. Under the Feinstein 
amendment, 34 States lose homeland security funding as compared to the 
formula in the bill. I repeat, we understand there are, based on 
subjective risk assessments, visible targets that appear particularly 
in larger States that one might say were probably more likely to be 
targets of terrorists. We acknowledge that. Our formulas give most of 
the money to these areas.
  I repeat a number that struck me. In this fiscal year, 42 percent of 
the homeland security grant funding goes to 5 States: California, 
Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois. It should go to these states. 
But I do not think, insofar as the first two amendments that are 
sponsored by colleagues from California and Illinois, they should want 
more of the money, and take it from 34 States--in the case of the first 
amendment by Senator Feinstein from California; that they should take 
from the other States which have needs as well.
  This is a balanced formula in the underlying bill that gives the 
overwhelming amount of money out to the States based on risk, but says 
each State deserves some minimum because of the nature of the threat we 
face.
  The first amendment will be the one offered by the Senator from 
California. I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment.
  May I ask the Chair, has all time been used up except for the time of 
the Senator from Illinois?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I understand through the staff of the Senator from 
Illinois that he is prepared to yield back his time.
  Mr. President, I think, consistent with the spirit, if not the exact 
letter, of the unanimous consent we agreed to, there should be a minute 
given to the Senator from California in support of the amendment, and 
perhaps a minute to my ranking member in opposition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, the point of this amendment is to 
produce a bill that, as nearly as possible, mirrors the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission. Those recommendations were clear and distinct. 
Money should go to communities based on risk, threat, and 
vulnerability. This should not be a revenue-sharing program. Yes, the 
big States have more infrastructure, more highrises, more tunnels, more 
subways--the kinds of things that are attractive to terrorists. If that 
is in fact the case, as judged not by us but by the experts, then that 
money should be able to go where there is risk, threat, and 
vulnerability.
  That is all this amendment does. We did not pull our figures out of 
the clear blue that concluded that 35 States are benefitted. These are 
the products of the Congressional Research Service analysis. We sent 
them the facts, and what they say is, assuming a $913 million 
authorization for the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law 
Enforcement Terrorist Program, this would be the result.
  You cannot say whether someone is going to get a grant, but these are 
their nearest computations of who would benefit on that list. Yes, some 
States do lose; there is no question.
  Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical to 
a proposal we voted on last July during the Homeland Security 
appropriations bill. In fact, we have repeatedly voted on this formula 
issue. We need to bring all States up to a certain baseline level of 
preparedness. That does not mean we do not figure in the risk; we do. 
Indeed, under our bill 95 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant 
Program funds and 100 percent of the Urban Area Security Initiative 
funding will be allocated based on risk.
  The Senator's analysis does not look at the impact she would have on 
all four of the programs included in our bill, yet her amendment does 
affect all four, and that is the reason our analysis is different.
  We cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal building in 
Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist bombing, and 
yet we know the tragic attack that occurred in that city.
  Rural flight schools were not obvious training grounds for 
terrorists, and yet we know that terrorists trained in Norman, OK.
  Portland, ME, was not an obvious departure point for the terrorist 
pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on 
September 11, and that is exactly what occurred.
  My point is that terrorists can and do shelter, train, recruit, plan, 
prepare, and attack in unlikely places. That is one reason our bill 
puts so much emphasis on prevention, an emphasis that

[[Page 5529]]

would be lost in the Senator's amendment.
  I urge opposition to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The question is on agreeing to the Feinstein amendment No. 335.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to table the Feinstein amendment 
No. 335 and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Carper
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Allard
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reid
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Johnson
       
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 338

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, there will now be 2 minutes 
of debate equally divided on Obama amendment No. 338.
  The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, this amendment aims at moving us closer to 
a risk-based allocation of resources. It takes us a step closer to the 
9/11 Commission report. I want to let everyone know that 34 States 
actually potentially do better under this amendment. Six States are 
held harmless, and there are some States that would get less money. But 
keep in mind the whole goal of this particular program is to ensure 
that money is allocated on the basis of risk. It would still be .25 
percent of the money allocated to every State. It would still be a 
minimum, and there would still be money through other programs that 
would ensure that money is allocated to States for all-hazard purposes.
  So I strongly urge all in this Chamber to take a look at this bill 
and look at the chart that we passed out. There have been arguments 
from my good friend, the Senator from Connecticut, as well as the 
Senator from Maine, suggesting that somehow States get less money. That 
is only the baseline; it does not include the money that would be 
allocated on the basis of risk.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this motion to table.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the amendment by the 
Senator from Illinois, and in that sense to support the very balanced 
formula in our underlying bill which gives most of the money in 
homeland security grant funding based on risk but acknowledges that 
every State faces the threat of terrorism and therefore deserves some 
minimum amount of funding. This amendment essentially raises the same 
points that the amendment offered by the Senator from California did, 
which my colleagues were just good enough to table. The amendment of 
the Senator from Illinois would leave 32 of our States with less 
guaranteed funding than the underlying bill, S. 4.
  I urge my colleagues to support the committee bill and oppose this 
amendment.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the next two votes be 10-
minute votes as opposed to 15.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Is there objection? Without 
objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I now move to table the amendment 
offered by the Senator from Illinois and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--59

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Carper
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Corker
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Cornyn
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Smith
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Johnson
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Ms. COLLINS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 333

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is now 2 minutes of debate equally 
divided on the Leahy amendment No. 333. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, this is the Leahy-Thomas amendment. The 
Senate has rejected the last two amendments. This is the amendment that 
protects small and medium States. The Leahy-Thomas amendment would 
protect Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, 
Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, 
Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, 
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, 
Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, 
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 
Wyoming.
  I am not suggesting people should vote from a parochial interest, but 
I want my colleagues to know the vast majority of States--small and 
medium--in this country would be protected by the Leahy-Thomas 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 5530]]


  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I think this is a very equitable and 
timely distribution of these funds. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. LEAHY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 333. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 63 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Carper
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Alexander
     Allard
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Gregg
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Martinez
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Stabenow
     Sununu
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb

                             NOT VOTING--1

     Johnson
       
       
  The amendment (No. 333) was rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, that was the last vote for tonight. I have 
been in contact with the two managers of the bill and the distinguished 
Republican leader, and we are trying to work out some votes in the 
morning prior to King Abdullah. What we would like to do is have a vote 
on McCaskill and Collins, and then we also have some nongermane 
amendments we have been given by the minority that they would like to 
dispose of, and we have a couple of nongermane amendments on this side 
we would like to dispose of. The staff, during that hour or two, will 
work to see if we can come up with some kind of agreement toward 
completion of this bill.
  I want all Senators to know, as I announced at the Democratic caucus 
today, that I am going to file cloture tomorrow on this bill. I hope we 
can have a good, full day of trying to complete this bill, and I also 
hope we can work something out where we may not have to have a cloture 
vote on Friday. If we do, we have to finish this bill this week. We 
could have some votes late into Friday. Everyone should be put on 
notice now that it may be necessary to have some Friday votes.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
recognized, following the Senator from Arizona for 3 minutes and the 
Senator from Connecticut for 5 minutes, for such time as I might 
consume on an amendment on this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I will not object, but I would like to 
receive the President's assurance that this matter will continue to be 
debated tomorrow.
  Mr. COBURN. I have no problem agreeing to debate this again tomorrow.
  Mr. AKAKA. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Amendment No. 357, As Modified

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, first I have a modification of my amendment 
No. 357 I would like to send to the desk. That amendment has already 
been offered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:
       At page 174, strike line 1 and all that follows through 
     page 175, line 18, and insert the following:
       ``(1) Data-mining.--The term ``data-mining'' means a query 
     or search or other analysis of one or more electronic 
     databases, where--
       (A) a department or agency of the Federal Government is 
     conducting the query or search or other analysis to find a 
     pattern indicating terrorist or other criminal activity on 
     the part of any individual or individuals;
       (B) the search does not use personal identifiers of a 
     specific individual or does not utilize inputs that appear on 
     their face to identify or be associated with a specified 
     individual to acquire information, to retrieve information 
     from the database or databases; and
       (C) at least one of the databases was obtained from or 
     remains under the control of a non-Federal entity, or the 
     information was acquired initially by another department or 
     agency of the Federal Government for purposes other than 
     intelligence or law enforcement.
       (2) Database.--The term ``database'' does not include 
     telephone directories, news reporting, information publicly 
     available via the Internet or available by any other means to 
     any member of the public, any databases maintained, operated, 
     or controlled by a State, local, or tribal government (such 
     as a State motor vehicle database), or databases of judicial 
     and administrative opinions.
       (c) Reports on Data Mining Activities by Federal 
     Agencies.--
       (1) Requirement for report.--The head of each department or 
     agency of the Federal Government that is engaged in any 
     activity to use or develop data mining shall submit a report 
     to Congress on all such activities of the department or 
     agency under the jurisdiction of that official. The report 
     shall be made available to the public, except for a 
     classified annex described paragraph (2)(H).
       (2) Content of report.--Each report submitted under 
     paragraph (1) shall include, for each activity to use or 
     develop data mining, the following information:
       (A) A thorough description of the data mining activity, its 
     goals, and, where appropriate, the target dates for the 
     deployment of the data mining activity.
       (B) A thorough description, without revealing existing 
     patents, proprietary business processes, trade secrets, and 
     intelligence sources and methods, of the data mining 
     technology that is being used or will be used, including the 
     basis for determining whether a particular pattern or anomaly 
     is indicative of terrorist or criminal activity.''


                           Amendment No. 317

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, at this point I wish to briefly address 
another amendment, amendment No. 317, which is already pending. This is 
an amendment which would prohibit rewarding families of suicide bombers 
for such attacks and stiffen penalties for other terrorist crimes. This 
is one we can hopefully adopt on a bipartisan basis. It would create 
the new offense of aiding the family or associates of a terrorist with 
the intent to encourage terrorist acts. It is targeted at those 
individuals who give money to the families of suicide bombers after 
such bombings. The amendment would make it a Federal offense to do so 
if the act can be connected to the United States and if the defendant 
acted with the intent to facilitate, reward, or encourage international 
acts of terrorism.
  Let me offer an example of why this amendment is necessary. In August 
of 2001, a Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a Sbarro pizza parlor in 
Jerusalem. Among those killed was an American citizen, Shoshana 
Greenbaum, who was a schoolteacher and who was pregnant at the time. 
Shortly after this bombing took place, the family of the suicide bomber 
was told to go to the Arab Bank. The bomber's family began receiving 
monthly payments through an account at that bank and later received a 
lump payment of $6,000.
  According to press accounts, this is not the only time Arab Bank has 
funneled money to the families of suicide bombers. One news account 
describes a branch of the bank in the Palestinian territories whose 
walls are covered with posters eulogizing suicide bombers.
  According to other news accounts, these suicide bombers in the 
Palestinian territories are recruited with

[[Page 5531]]

the promises that their families will be taken care of financially 
after the attack. Saudi charities, the Palestinian Authority, and even 
Saddam Hussein have rewarded suicide bombers' families for their acts. 
According to one account, Saddam Hussein paid $35 million to 
terrorists' families during his time. Obviously, his actions are no 
longer of concern, but we should all be deeply concerned about other 
wealthy individuals and financial institutions that continue to pay out 
these rewards. It is undoubtedly the case that in some instances, these 
payments make the difference in whether an individual will commit a 
suicide bombing.
  My amendment will make it a Federal crime, with extraterritorial 
jurisdiction in cases that can be linked to U.S. interests, to pay the 
families of suicide bombers and other terrorists with the intent to 
facilitate terrorist acts. My amendment also makes other improvements 
to the antiterrorism laws, primarily by increasing the maximum 
penalties for various aspects of the material support offenses, which 
already exist in law.
  I hope, as I said, my colleagues will view this as an amendment which 
we can adopt on a bipartisan basis. It is an important amendment to 
ensure that another avenue of terrorism can be shut off. I ask for my 
colleagues' affirmative consideration of this amendment No. 317, and I 
thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his courtesies extended to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me also address my thanks to our 
colleague from Oklahoma. Before I discuss the Banking Committee's 
contribution to this important bill, I would like to take a moment to 
provide some thoughts on the overall bill--especially the initiatives 
pertaining to our Nation's homeland security. Over 5 years after the 
tragic events of 9/11 and almost 20 months since the tragic events of 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, we continue to hear from Governors, county 
executives, mayors, first responders, health professionals, and 
emergency preparedness officials that our country as a whole remains 
unprepared for another manmade or natural disaster. We have heard the 
argument, which I support, that Congress needs to do more to support 
regional and local efforts to protect Americans.
  Overall, I believe this bill takes a critical step forward in 
protecting Americans at home from manmade and natural disasters. It 
codifies several recommendations made by the 9/11 Commission--seminal 
recommendations that, nearly 3 years after being issued, have still not 
been implemented by this White House or the Congress.
  I support the measures in this bill designed to allocate critical 
resources based on concrete risk and effectiveness analysis. I also 
support the measure in this bill that establishes a minimum base of 
funding for all States. We all know how important initiatives like the 
State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism 
Prevention Program are to our States and localities. While I believe 
those areas with higher degrees of risk from manmade and natural 
disasters should receive adequate resources proportionate to that risk, 
I also believe that all areas of our country should receive a base 
amount of funding that guarantees the protection of all Americans.
  I am going to jump to the section of the legislation over which the 
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee has specific 
jurisdiction. The Presiding Officer is a distinguished member of the 
committee. He will recall just a few weeks ago we marked up the transit 
security bill which is now a part of this legislation.
  I thank Senator Richard Shelby, my ranking member on the committee, 
former chairman of the committee, for his cooperation, and I thank all 
members of the committee. We marked up this piece of the bill now 
before the Senate, unanimously. It is very much a reflection of what 
the committee did previously in the 109th Congress to deal with 
transportation security, and we thought it was an important matter to 
raise at the outset.
  My compliments to the chairman of the committee for the underlying 
legislation, who is responsible for the homeland security issues, and 
his colleague from Maine, for the tremendous work they have done on 
this bill, and for others who have been involved in it.
  I would be remiss if I also didn't commend the distinguished chairman 
of the Commerce Committee, Senator Inouye, and his ranking member, 
Senator Stevens, for their work, as well as Senator Reid, the majority 
leader, for bringing this all together in one package.
  It is also important we recognize how important transit security is. 
The Presiding Officer and others will recall we had a hearing on this 
subject matter and heard from some very interesting witnesses. It is 
not all that common that we invite witnesses who are not U.S. citizens 
to come and participate in congressional hearings. But given the 
tragedies in Madrid and London, we thought it might be worthwhile to 
hear from those who manage the transit operations in those two cities 
to come and share with us information about those two experiences. I 
think their testimony was very helpful in galvanizing the importance of 
this issue and the attention of the committee and, we hope, our 
colleagues as well.
  We learned in those hearings, of course, that transit attacks have 
unfortunately been the major source of some of the terrorist activities 
over the last number of years. It is no secret that worldwide 
terrorists have favored public transit as a target. Transit has been 
the single most frequent target of terrorism.
  In the decade leading up to 2000, 42 percent of terrorist attacks 
worldwide targeted rail systems or buses, according to a study done by 
the Brookings Institution. In 2005 they attacked, as I mentioned, 
London's rail and bus system killing 52 riders and injuring almost 700 
more in what has been called London's bloodiest peacetime attack. In 
2004 they attacked Madrid's metro system killing 192 people and leaving 
1,500 people injured.
  The Banking Committee heard testimony from the leaders of these two 
transit systems, as I mentioned. Transit is frequently targeted because 
it is tremendously important to any nation's economy. Securing our 
transit systems and our transportation networks generally is a 
difficult challenge under any circumstances. Every act to increase 
security generally potentially limits the specific security needs of a 
transit agency. The bill includes grants for security equipment, 
evacuation drills, and, most importantly--what we heard from the 
witnesses, particularly from Madrid and London--worker training. 
Indeed, the bill requires worker training for all systems that receive 
security grants. The importance of worker training can be scarcely 
overstated. Transit workers are the first line of defense against an 
attack and the first to respond to an event of an attack.
  Mr. O'Toole, the director of London's transit system said:

       You have to invest in your staff and rely on them. You have 
     to invest in technology, but don't rely on it.

  Finally, the bill authorizes funds for the research of new and 
existing security technologies and fully authorizes the funding of the 
Information Sharing Analysis Center, a valuable tool that provides 
transit agencies timely information on active threats against their 
systems.
  Over the years we have invested heavily in aviation security. In 
fact, we have invested about $7.50 per aviation passenger per trip. 
About 1.8 million people travel using the aviation system daily in this 
country. 14 million people use mass transit systems every workday. We 
have invested about $380 million in the security of mass transit 
systems. That is about one penny per passenger per trip.
  I am not suggesting, nor do we require, that there be an equilibrium 
between the security systems of both aviation and mass transit systems. 
But our bill does provide an authorization of $3.5 billion to increase 
exactly the kind of operations I have described briefly, including the 
training issues which are critically important.

[[Page 5532]]

  We believe with this additional authorization, and we hope an 
appropriate appropriation from the responsible committees, that we will 
be able to provide some additional security for this critically 
important system of our economy.
  Again, I am grateful to the members of the committee, as well as my 
colleagues here, for their indication of support of this effort. It is 
going to be very important to all of us across this country. This is 
not limited, obviously, to the east coast or west coast. In fact, now 
some of the most urbanized States in the country are Western States 
with mass transit systems. It is going to be very important we provide 
the kind of support that this provision of the bill does.
  Again, my thanks to Senator Shelby, to all members of the committee 
who played a very constructive role in crafting this legislation, as 
they did in the 109th Congress and, again, to my colleague from 
Connecticut and my colleague from Maine for their fine work on this 
issue, making this a part of this bill. I urge the adoption of this 
section when the full bill is considered.
  Again, my thanks to my colleague from Oklahoma for providing some 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Kyl amendment is the pending amendment.


                           Amendment No. 345

  Mr. COBURN. I ask unanimous consent that pending amendment be set 
aside in consideration of an amendment that has already been called up, 
my amendment, No. 345.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. This is a pretty straightforward amendment.
  I also ask unanimous consent Senator McCain be added as a cosponsor 
of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COBURN. One of the first things we found out after 9/11 was a lot 
of our emergency workers could not talk to each other. That was one of 
the most glaring, obvious defects in our response to emergencies--that 
emergency personnel had difficulty, from one group to another, talking 
to one another. As a matter of fact, it limited their ability to save 
lives.
  From the beginning of the 9/11 Commission and from the start, in 
2002, that has been addressed in multiple ways. The purpose of this 
amendment is to describe what is obviously something that is not good 
for us as a nation.
  We presently have occurring with the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 an 
electromagnetic spectrum which was sold off and $1 billion reserved 
under a program called the Public Safety Interoperability Public 
Service Grant Program. That $1 billion was carved off and that is where 
we are going to spend it. I don't disagree with that at all.
  What this bill has is another $3.4 billion for interoperable grants 
addressing the same problem in a different way than what the other 
grant program was. One of our problems as a nation is we have too many 
programs that are doing the same thing. They duplicate one another. One 
is better and the other is not. Yet we continue sending money down both 
holes, not making adjustments as to which gives us the best value for 
our money.
  What has happened with this money from the Commerce Department, 
through a memorandum of understanding, is the administration of this 
grant program has been transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security with a little fiat that the Department of Commerce kept $12 
million for themselves.
  This memorandum of understanding was dated just a few weeks ago, 
February 16, and what it did is it gave the administration near 
complete administrative control of this grant program, the one from 
Commerce, the one from 2005, to the Department of Homeland Security. 
This grant program has yet, to date, to receive any applications for 
any grants to be administered under the program. This is 2005; 2006 we 
did this. Now we are into March of 2007, and we have not received the 
first application.
  S. 4, being considered on the Senate floor now, as I said, creates 
yet another interoperable grant program, the Emergency Communications 
and Interoperability Grant Program. This program is also going to be 
administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The purpose of 
this grant program is to make grants to States for purchasing 
interoperable equipment and training personnel, testing on how and when 
to use it--similar to the PSIC grant which was mainly for equipment. 
This program authorizes $3.3 billion to be authorized in grants over 
the first 5 years of the program and indefinite amounts, ``such sums as 
are necessary,'' after that.
  A question comes to mind: How much money would it take for every 
first responder in this country to have interoperable communications? 
We don't address that in this bill. We just keep sending the money for 
it, after we send the first $3.3 billion and then whatever it takes 
after that, rather than looking and reassessing what our need is.
  If S. 4 passes in its current form, Congress will have authorized the 
creation of two nearly identical interoperability grant programs. 
Again, interoperability is this concept that first responders can talk 
to one another: if there is a fire going on in Tulsa, and there is a 
need that Oklahoma City firefighters will be there, that they can talk 
to them; that if there is something going on in Arkansas and Oklahoma 
first responders need to be there, there is the ability for them to 
talk to one another over their communications gear.
  One of these grant programs is housed at Commerce but run by DHS. The 
other is going to be housed at DHS. The differences between these two 
programs in their details are minimal. Both provide for funding of 
equipment, both provide for funding for training, and both will exist 
side by side until 2010, when PSIC expires.
  The purpose of this amendment would be to combine the two duplicative 
grant programs for interoperability. It does it by repealing the PSIC 
Grant Program at Commerce and it redirects the funding set aside for 
the PSIC Grant Program at Commerce to funding the Emergency 
Communications and Interoperability Grant Program at DHS. This will not 
decrease the amount of money. We are going to still spend $4.3 billion. 
But we are going to do it through one grant program rather than two.
  There are not going to be two sets of signals out there for the 
States that want to go after this money or the communities that need to 
go after this money. There is going to be one.
  There are a couple of technical changes with this that are required, 
which is repealing the Call Home Act of 2006, which sets a deadline of 
September 30, 2007. We haven't had the first grant application right 
now, so that gives us less than 6 months to get grants in and advised 
and granted on the PSIC Grant Program.
  Finally, I think a very important part of this amendment requires 
that DHS study and report to Congress on the feasibility of engaging 
the private sector in developing a national interoperable emergency 
communications network. Neither of these grant programs address the 
national focus that would be needed. One of the problems in Katrina was 
all the people who went down there, the 9/11 responders and emergency 
responders, couldn't communicate with the emergency responders in 
Louisiana.
  What this says is, aren't there some brains out there in the private 
sector who could tell us what we need to do and then we could have our 
grant programs actually go to buy the equipment, the training, so the 
program is already figured out so we don't have duplication so the 
people in Oklahoma can talk to the people in Kansas and Nebraska and in 
New York--all across the country. There is no national security reason 
why we need two interoperable communication grant programs for the 
States.
  The second point: The administration--this is another area of this 
bill

[[Page 5533]]

that they strongly oppose, setting up two identical or very similar 
grant programs.
  No. 3, the Department of Commerce has essentially contracted this 
grant program out to DHS. It rightfully should be.
  No. 4, the 9/11 economic report explicitly stated that Congress 
should not use grant programs as porkbarrel. If we have two grant 
programs running side by side and one isn't talking to another and a 
State has gotten one and they don't know the State is applying for the 
same thing at the other, how much stewardship have we practiced with 
the American taxpayers' money? We have not.
  One of the prime recommendations of the 9/11 Commission was to 
reorganize the grant programs to eliminate confusion. That is exactly 
what this amendment does. It reorganizes the grant programs into one 
grant program, one place where you go to get it, one source of 
planning, one source of administration for it.
  I will not go into the reasons why we have two programs, but needless 
to say it is because Members of Congress are not talking to each other. 
We have two interoperability grant programs that are not interoperable 
because we have a Congress that is not interoperable in communications 
with one another in terms of committee to committee or Member to 
Member.
  The Department of Homeland Security has been cleared as the lead 
Federal agency for interoperability emergency communications. That is 
where these grants ought to be. That is who we are going to hold 
accountable. By not having them both in the same department, then we 
are not going to be able to hold them accountable when we do oversight.
  The other thing is the average American cannot afford to purchase two 
of anything. Many times with these two programs, we are going to see 
the same thing paid for twice because the right hand is not going to 
know what the left hand is doing. There is no good policy reason for 
the Federal Government to have these two programs.
  The other thing I think is fairly easy to recognize is if you have 
two grant programs, it is hard for the American public to realize how 
much money we are spending on the grant programs because you have got 
to find one and then the other. The total, which is going to be $4.3 
billion, is not recognized now.
  The final reason is our first responder organizations write grants. 
They are already required, in terms of all of the things we have done 
in terms of emergency preparedness, to provide multiple proposals 
annually right now to get Federal funding. Why would we not want them 
to have one application for interoperability? It is a waste of their 
time and the State's time.
  The arguments you are going to hear tomorrow--we are going to debate 
this amendment again tomorrow afternoon with my colleagues from Hawaii 
and Alaska. They are going to say the PSIC Grant Program is only 
authorized until 2010, so after that there would not be a problem 
anymore for two grant programs. That is not a good reason to have two 
grant programs.
  The public safety interoperability program requires the department to 
coordinate its efforts with the Secretary of Homeland Security. Yes, 
they did. They signed a memorandum of understanding that says they are 
going to run it all.
  Finally, the Commerce Department has the authority and expertise over 
emergency communication grant programs. Although the PSIC Program was 
placed in Commerce, all of the operational authority for that grant 
program was essentially transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security.
  The Department of Homeland Security essentially treats the PSIC as 
part of its own budget, showing that Commerce has no real role in 
administering this program.
  Another argument would be the programs are not identical but focus on 
different aspects of communications interoperability; it would hurt the 
emergency response community to get rid of either one of the programs.
  Well, the one that is in this bill does it all. The one that is in 
the Commerce bill that we have already allocated $1 billion for is 
mainly about equipment, it is not as much about training.
  We ought to know, if we are going to spend $4.3 billion that 
emergency responders anywhere ought to be able to talk to one another. 
We do not know that with this money. There is no string on this money 
that says that is the end goal. That is why a study coming out of the 
Department of Homeland Security that says go look at the outside and 
ask the private sector to tell us how do we take this spectrum that has 
been set aside, two different sections of spectrum for this, and how do 
we create a plan so that throughout the whole country, no matter what 
the need is, one group of emergency responders can talk to another?
  That is what we ought to be getting for our $4.3 billion. That is not 
in either one of those programs. So what we are going to do is we are 
going to spend $4.3 billion on these grant programs, with no assurances 
that we are going to accomplish the very thing we seek to accomplish.
  I believe there could not be a more wasteful attempt at our spending 
when we do not know what we are going to do for an endpoint on the 
spending.
  A few comments about the overall bill. There has to come a point in 
time in this country where we recognize that we do not have enough 
money to do everything we need to do to protect us. That is true today. 
Where we ought to be putting our money is where we think the highest 
risks are. I agree with the Presiding Officer. Areas such as New Jersey 
are at much greater risk and ought to get much greater funding. They 
have a greater risk and a greater need.
  Does that mean I am pleased if that means soft targets in Oklahoma 
are going to be exposed? No, but there has to be a dispensing of the 
money based on what the most likely risks are. So when we finish all of 
this, we will have gotten what we wanted.
  Earlier today, I offered an amendment to sunset this bill in 5 years. 
We will look at it again and see what have we accomplished. What is 
left to accomplish? Where is the greatest area of risk? What do we 
still need to do? We have not done that in this bill. That is how we 
are going to make good policy--making sure that the dollars we spend to 
protect America are spent on the areas that will get us the most in 
this bill that we are debating today. We refuse to do that. It 
authorizes this bill to continue forever.
  There is no sunset to it. There is no stop to say that we need to 
relook at this. There is nothing for the Congress to come back and look 
at as we did in the PATRIOT Act, where we required that we had to come 
back and look at it. We sunsetted it. And even though we passed the 
PATRIOT Act last year, we took sections of it that we said we know we 
are going to want to look at again, so we sunsetted it.
  If we are going to be good stewards with the American taxpayer's 
money, we ought to sunset this bill. We ought to sunset these two 
interoperability programs so that we know whether we have accomplished 
what we desire and know what the problems are so that we can predict 
them. By not sunsetting, by not combining the programs, by not 
efficiently spending and wisely planning the spending of the American 
taxpayer dollars is getting us on down the road where we do not want to 
be, which is more and more of what we are spending today being paid for 
more and more by our grandchildren and children of tomorrow.
  I thank you for the time. I look forward to debating this bill 
tomorrow with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye. My hope is that 
Senator McCain, who is a member of the Commerce Committee, will be here 
to aid in this. There is no reason for us to have two programs making 
States apply for two different grant programs that essentially do the 
same thing.
  We would not do that ourselves in our homes. We would not set up two 
parallel requirements to accomplish the same goal. We should not be 
doing it in this bill.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the grant 
funding formula in the underlying bill, S .4, as

[[Page 5534]]

well as Senator Reid's amendment in the nature of a substitute. I also 
wish to underscore the comments made previously by the chairman and 
ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee on which I serve. As 
Senators Lieberman and Collins have articulated so well, I do not 
question the need for heavily populated States such as New Jersey and 
Texas to receive appropriate sums of homeland security grant funding to 
address their homeland security needs, nor do I question the need to 
protect chemical plants or to protect nuclear power plants. All of this 
is beyond question.
  The point of this debate is protecting America against many risks, 
both natural and manmade. The State of Hawaii is subject to many 
natural disasters including hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, 
tsunamis, wildfires, droughts, and tropical storms. In addition, Hawaii 
is unique in that it is 2500 miles from the U.S. mainland. If disaster 
strikes Hawaii, natural or otherwise, it does not have neighboring 
States to rely on for assistance. It therefore must have numerous 
safety and security systems in place and be relatively self-reliant. 
Hawaii is also the gateway to the Pacific and, as such, provides 
support to American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands 
through the U.S. Pacific Command, PACOM, in the event of a disaster. 
Hawaii also provided assistance and support to Thailand in the 
aftermath of the December 26, 2004, tsunami.
  It is critical to remember that, although the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, FEMA, was folded into the Department of Homeland 
Security, DHS, its mandate as the principal Federal agency charged with 
addressing preparation, mitigation, and response to all disasters, both 
natural and manmade, remains.
  On January 18, 2007, DHS Secretary Chertoff announced his plan to 
reorganize DHS. That plan calls for FEMA to assume control of the 
Grants and Training program, including the State Homeland Security 
Grant Program, SHSGP, and other grant programs--grant programs that 
fund not only activities to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to 
terrorist attacks but also activities to prepare for, mitigate, and 
respond to natural disasters. Securing our homeland does not only mean 
protecting it from terrorists but also from the effects of mother 
nature, a force capable of directing a Katrina-sized hurricane to our 
soil.
  In his recently released book, ``The Edge of Disaster,'' Dr. Stephen 
Flynn, a senior fellow with the National Security Studies Program at 
the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that 90 percent of Americans 
reside in an area that will experience a moderate to major natural 
disaster at any given time. This is not just about urban areas; this is 
about nearly every American being faced with a significant natural 
disaster with a far higher likelihood than any terrorist attack. As Dr. 
Flynn observes, we need ``an all-hazards approach'' in ``constructing 
safer communities and reducing the overall fragility of the nation.''
  Hurricane Katrina illustrated that the United States has limited 
surge capacity at the State and local levels to respond to a large-
scale natural or manmade event. Aging infrastructure, including faulty 
power grids, shortages in medical personnel and supplies make the 
United States vulnerable and exacerbate the impact of any attack or 
natural disaster. If we have a weak infrastructure, faulty and eroding 
levees, hopelessly outdated communications systems, then we are 
vulnerable and no amount of radiation portal monitors, RPMs, will 
protect us from the catastrophic impact of a terrorist attack or 
natural disaster.
  I strongly support the homeland security grant formula contained in S 
.4 and Senator Reid's amendment in the nature of a substitute. I oppose 
any efforts to lower guaranteed funding levels for all States.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________