Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006--Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2006--Continued -- (Senate - July 12, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I yield myself 9 minutes.

Let me make some concluding remarks about the impact of the amendment offered by our colleagues, Senator Feinstein and Senator Cornyn. The fact is that the amendment would decimate the predictable funding levels for States. The minimum in the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is only .25. It is simply too low to support the efforts by States to have a predictable base level of funding each year to fund multiyear projects, such as creating interoperable communications networks, first responder training programs, or the agriterrorism project that the Midwestern Governors are eager to establish.

I will give you a couple of examples of what the differences would mean. Assuming the Senate bill's appropriation level under our amendment, the State of Georgia could plan on receiving a base amount of $15.3 million. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Georgia would be assured of getting only $2.4 million as a minimum allocation.

Under our amendment, North Carolina would receive a base of a little over $15 million. But under Feinstein-Cornyn, the State could only count on $2.4 million.

Under our amendment, Florida would receive a base amount of more than $30 million because of the sliding scale minimum. But under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, Florida would only get $2.4 million.

Furthermore, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment's lack of predictable funding inhibits the ability of States to plan. Both our colleagues' amendment and the Collins-Lieberman amendment would require States to submit 3-year State homeland security plans. Yet, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment does not provide a predictable base, so such plans would not be a fruitful exercise.

For example, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment requires that the State plan include ``a prioritization of needs based on threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessment, and a description of how the State intends to address such needs at the city, county, regional, tribal, and interstate level.''

I simply fail to see how a State could satisfy these ambitious requirements without any assurances that it would receive a significant base amount of funding. Because our amendment provides States with that predictable, substantial base allocation, the 3-year plans would actually become useful roadmaps and would allow for more efficient expenditure of homeland security funds. That is why our amendment is strongly supported over the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment by the National Governors Association.

Mr. President, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment shortchanges funding dedicated to the prevention of terrorism attacks. It simply does not provide the kind of assured funding needed for law enforcement to help detect and prevent attacks before they occur. Indeed, it takes significant steps backward from what Senators GREGG and BYRD have included in the underlying bill.

The underlying bill appropriates $400 million for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, which provides funds for police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel to stop terrorist activity before it occurs. By contrast, the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment actually swallows up the existing law enforcement terrorism prevention program, without ensuring any funds whatsoever--any funds whatsoever--for our police, sheriffs, and other law enforcement personnel.

In other words, all of the funding under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment could be used to prepare to respond to terrorist attacks, leaving efforts to prevent such attacks entirely up to our States and communities.

In sharp contrast, the Collins-Lieberman amendment would formally authorize the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program and ensure that prevention efforts are adequately protected by treating them as a separate program with different allowable uses than response efforts. That is why the law enforcement community has overwhelmingly endorsed our amendment.

The Collins-Lieberman amendment enjoys the support of the National Troopers Coalition, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Union of Police Associations, the Association of Chiefs of Police, and the list goes on and on, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, and the National Emergency Management Association.

I ask unanimous consent that the letters from these and other organizations be printed in the RECORD.

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

Letters of Support for S. 21

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, there are other issues as well that are very important to comment on. Another one is that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment does not include adequate accountability measures. We know that we need tough accountability measures, such as what is included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment. Such measures, for example, include a requirement for a GAO audit. We would also require in our amendment--in contrast to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment--that all spending be tied to achieving essential prevention and preparedness goals.

This is an important point. We cannot afford to have scarce homeland security dollars wasted on leather jackets in the District of Columbia or be used to buy air-conditioned garbage trucks for a New Jersey city. We need to make sure the expenditures are wise and appropriate, and the tough accountability measures included in the Collins-Lieberman amendment will do that.

I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment is silent on an authorization level, and it doesn't attempt to restore the $900 million in cuts since fiscal year 2004. Only our amendment seeks to stop the reduction of funding for first responders by authorizing a significant level of funding. We didn't go overboard. It is a level of funding that was provided in fiscal year 2004; it is $2.9 billion.

While we are making progress every year on becoming better prepared to prevent or respond to attacks, we are a long way from completing the task. I note that the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment excludes from risk-based funding substantially all the cities that have not received funds in the past. This is an important point. While the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment purports to authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to distribute funds as he sees fit based on risk, in reality it effectively restricts the universe of cities that could apply for risk-based funding to those that have received risk-based funding in the past. In this sense, it perpetuates the status quo.

If a city or region has not received risk-based funding in the past and then is faced with a potential threat, for example, due to the construction of a new chemical facility or another piece of critical infrastructure or because it is hosting a large event, it is out of luck; it is ineligible to apply for risk-based funding under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

Finally, let me show you the impact--on this chart in green and white--of the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment. The States in green are better off under the Collins-Lieberman approach--the approach supported by the occupant of the chair. It is virtually every State. I also point out that those seven states in white don't do badly. They do very well because we are doubling the amount of money that is risk-based, and we are also providing for a reasonable minimum allocation.

There it is. I hope my colleagues will consider this. A lot of work went into crafting this amendment. It is a comprehensive approach for a grant program for which we have appropriated billions of dollars, but never authorized. Let's do this right. Let's adopt the bipartisan Collins-Lieberman amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

AMENDMENT NO. 1142

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, during the past 3 years, we have appropriated more than $8 billion in homeland security grants, despite the fact that this program has never been properly authorized. The Homeland Security Committee has spent the last 3 years working on an authorization bill. We have produced a carefully crafted, balanced bill that is incorporated in the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

This debate is about establishing a formula that provides a predictable level of funding scaled to reflect the different needs of large and small States that will allow all States to achieve essential preparedness and prevention capabilities. We break the mold that provides a set baseline amount to each State regardless of size and needs. This debate is also about distributing more funds based on risk.

Let's put this important issue in perspective. Compared to last year, our amendment would double the amount of funds distributed based on risk. Last year only 37 percent of funds appropriated for homeland security grants were allocated based on risk. Under our amendment, more than 70 percent of the funds would be distributed based on risk or factors used now by the Department of Homeland Security to determine risk. That is a lot of discretion that we are giving to the Secretary.

I want to address the CRS memo solicited by Senator Lautenberg that was discussed this morning. It has been used by our opponents to suggest that only 60 percent is distributed based on risk. In fact, it is more than 70 percent, as is the underlying bill. Tellingly, in a memorandum issued just today, CRS categorizes the sliding scale allocation as risk based.

This is a balanced approach. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Collins-Lieberman amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

[AMENDMENT NO. 1215, AS MODIFIED]

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, we all want more funding to be distributed on risk. The Collins-Lieberman amendment which was just adopted more than doubles the amount of money allocated based on risk. Risk is not a science. We are giving unprecedented authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security, that there is no precedent for in any grant program of this size.

The fact is, under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, every State would lose at least $8 million in guaranteed funding. Some States would lose tens of millions of dollars. Even taking into account how funds have historically been distributed based on risk, 43 States lose money under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment verses the Collins-Lieberman amendment. We have to recognize that every State has vulnerabilities and needs to be brought up to a baseline ability to prepare and prevent for terrorist attacks. The Collins-Lieberman amendment was endorsed by many law enforcement groups that do not support this approach.

I urge opposition to the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov