Department Of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2006--Continued

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in the debate on the competing amendments, the Collins-Lieberman amendment and the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment, before I get into the body of my remarks, I want to address some criticism that was lodged at the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. I believe reference was made to the amendment as being ``cobbled together.''

I point out to my colleagues that the amendment of Senator Feinstein and myself was not a cobbled-together proposal. Our work was based on work already done in the House of Representatives and in this body as well. We have also worked with a number of cities and States. In fact, our language is precisely the same, or I should say based on Congressman Chris Cox's legislation, H.R. 1544, which passed in the House 409 to 10, hardly indicative of an amendment that was cobbled together.

The question really is, Who should make the decision on how to allocate homeland security dollars? There has been a lot of discussion about how much money should be distributed as a minimum amount and how much should be distributed based on risk. I ask my colleagues to consider in this war on terror who should make the decisions on how best to allocate resources. Should Congress divvy up the pie and decide to distribute money based on how many pieces of pie ought to be cut up, or should those who have access to the intelligence, who know about risk and how best to allocate our resources to address that risk be the ones to make that distribution?

In our military and national defense, Congress provides for adequate training and equipment for the Department of Defense and then empowers the Department to allocate the resources where it believes they will be the most effective.

I suggest to my colleagues that in the war on terror, the rules should be no different. We should empower the Department of Homeland Security with the similar flexibility to respond and marshal resources as needed.

Finally, just by way of preliminary remarks, this morning Senator Feinstein offered a letter for the RECORD from a number of high-threat cities that support the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. There have been several additions to the list of cities, including Atlanta, Buffalo, Houston, San Antonio, Seattle, and Toledo. I ask that this updated letter be printed in the RECORD.

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

July 11, 2005.
Re high-threat cities joint working group on homeland security.

Hon. BILL FRIST,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. HARRY REID,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR MAJORITY LEADER AND MINORITY LEADER: As cities on the front line of the war on terrorism, we are writing to express our support for the amendment offered by Senators Feinstein and Cornyn to incorporate S. 1013, the ``Homeland Security FORWARD Funding Act of 2005, into the FY2006 Homeland Security Appropriations bill. The Feinstein-Cornyn approach best targets first responder funds to areas of highest risk and highest threat throughout the nation. We also write to support homeland security funding for state and local governments at least at last year's levels. The recent events in London underline the importance of homeland funding for state and local governments.

The Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) issued today, in addressing State and Local Programs, urges Congress to take further steps to increase the share of State grants that can be targeted to where they are needed most, consistent with the President's request. The Statement further notes, when referring to Potential Amendments, that the Administration ``supports efforts to allocate a greater share of homeland security grants based on risk and would be opposed to any amendment that would ..... cap funding for high-threat cities while not providing flexibility to distribute over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of risk, as proposed in the President's Budget.'' The Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment clearly meets these standards, and the alternative Collins Amendment incorporating S. 21 does not.

The Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment most closely tracks the recommendations of both the 9/11 Commission and the Administration in supporting the principle that homeland security funds should be allocated solely on the basis of risk of terrorism. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment would distribute 87 percent of state and local homeland security funds based on threat, compared to only 60 percent distributed based on threat under the Collins Amendment.

The Feinstein-Cornyn Amendment also preserves the critical partnership between the federal government, states and the nation's highest risk areas by maintaining the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) program. These UASI regions have for several years been aggressively working to implement comprehensive plans for terrorism prevention and preparedness approved by their States and DHS. Maintaining the UASI program will preserve and sustain the substantial planning, longterm projects, and regional decision-making processes underway. The Collins Amendment would cap the amount of funds that can go to high-threat cities at 30 percent of the total amount of state and local homeland funding. This cap would restrict the high-threat program to a lesser amount than appropriated in previous years.

The homeland security bill as reported by the Senate Appropriations committee would cut homeland security funding to state and local governments by almost a half billion dollars, $467 million less than FY2005. Please restore this funding.

We again commend you on your efforts to increase the amount of homeland security funds distributed based on threat, vulnerability, and consequences of a terrorist attack.

Sincerely,

City of Anaheim, California, City of Atlanta, Georgia, City of Baltimore, Maryland, City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, City of Boston, Massachusetts, City of Buffalo, New York, City of Charlotte, North Carolina, City of Chicago, --Illinois, City of Cleveland, Ohio, City of Columbus, Ohio;

City of Dallas, Texas, City of Denver, Colorado, City of Jacksonville, Florida, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of Long Beach, California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of Miami, Florida, City of New York, New York, City of Newark, New Jersey, City of Oakland, California;

City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, City of Sacramento, California, City of San Antonio, Texas, City of San Diego, California, City of San Francisco, California, City of San Jose, California, City of Santa Ana, California. City of Seattle, Washington, City of Toledo, Ohio.

Mr. CORNYN. Finally, by way of preliminary remarks, I have in my hand a letter written by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, dated July 12, 2005, where Secretary Chertoff writes to express his concern with regard to amendments that may be offered to change the first responder grant funding formula. Secretary Chertoff says that he welcomes the efforts by Congress to ensure that more homeland security dollars are distributed on the basis of risk, which is precisely what the amendment Senator Feinstein and I have offered does.

I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the RECORD at the close of my remarks.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

(See exhibit 1.)

Mr. CORNYN. I rise to join the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and other distinguished colleagues in urging support for the amendment that we have offered. I am compelled to bring this issue to the Senate's attention because I think it is imperative that we effectively and efficiently protect our most vulnerable assets and population centers, as this amendment is calculated to do. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate, and I certainly want to acknowledge the outstanding work that Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman have done on homeland security issues generally.

However, the amendment that Senator Feinstein and I offer takes a different approach than the one they have taken. I submit their amendment, as embodied in S. 21, does not achieve the level of risk-based funding necessary to most effectively spend our homeland security dollars.

We have said it often on the Senate floor and elsewhere that 9/11 has changed everything. The attacks of that day were unprecedented in our history, and they brought home the need for similarly unprecedented security measures. In an effort to respond quickly to the devastation that day wrought in our country, the Federal Government created a system that worked to raise overall national emergency preparedness to ensure that we would better guard against another such terrorist attack in the future.

So we embarked on shoring up our airline, transportation, border, and port security. We worked to protect our critical infrastructure, to protect our cyber security, our agriculture and food supply systems. But taxpayer dollars are not limitless. Nor do any one of us want to live in a lockdown that would be tantamount to a police state. Rather, in this free society in which we live, Congress must work to ensure that every penny allocated for our homeland security efforts must be directed where it will do the most good.

It is imperative that we guard the places across our Nation where terrorists may strike and where such strikes could do the most harm to our people, to our Government, and to our economy. I believe this is the most responsible way to prepare for any future terrorist attack.

In addition to the important efforts we are undertaking with regard to collecting and analyzing intelligence, we must take the fight on the offensive where the terrorists work, train, and recruit rather than on our homeland. We need to have a system that will protect our most vulnerable population centers and that recognizes the need to protect the critical infrastructure and vital components of our national economy.

I am reminded of a tour that I took recently of several Texas seaports. I visited with port directors, industry leaders, and emergency responders in and around the ports of Houston, Beaumont, and Corpus Christi. These kinds of facilities and the communities that surround them have enormous security needs, and the consequences of a successful terrorist attack on any of these facilities would be devastating, not just to these local communities but to the economic engine that runs this whole country.

The ripples of a successful attack to any one of these areas would reach well into the interior of our country. We should protect our population centers, but we must also realize that when it comes to protecting our economy and vulnerable critical infrastructure, it is necessary to protect the vital components of these systems and not just the population centers. We must take further steps to secure our agricultural and food production systems and protect the ports that ship products in and out of this country. I believe the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein and myself maximizes this kind of flexibility and this kind of protection.

This amendment would require that the Federal Department of Homeland Security funds be allocated to States according to a risk-based assessment. It is vital that we better allocate our limited resources to the vulnerable places in the country that we most need to protect and that these funds be distributed in an efficient and timely manner.

Senator Feinstein and I have evaluated the 9/11 Commission's recommendations that call for allocation of money based on vulnerabilities. Our legislation provides for a distribution formula for homeland security grants based upon three main criteria: threat, vulnerability, and consequence. This requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to where they are most needed. This proposal is inspired by the hard work and examination done on this issue by our colleagues in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

We have also taken input from stakeholders in our respective States and from across the country. It is our hope and intention that by introducing this amendment we can contribute and enrich the public discourse on this critical issue and help move the Nation toward a more rational and effective distribution of our homeland security resources.

Key provisions of this amendment provide establishing a first responder grant board consisting of the Department of Homeland Security leadership that will rank and prioritize grant applications based on threat and vulnerability, enabling a region that encompasses more than one State to apply for funds. The money would still pass through the States but would go to the region to better enable coordination and planning.

This amendment would provide greater flexibility in using the funds, allowing the State to use them for other hazards consistent with federally established capability standards. And it allows States to retain authority to administer grant programs, but there are penalties for States that do not pass funds to local governments within 45 days. If a State fails to pass the funds through, local governments may petition the Department of Homeland Security directly to receive those funds.

In addition to trying to implement a system that was recommended by the 9/11 Commission, Senator Feinstein and I have proposed an amendment that honors the requests of the administration as reflected in the fiscal year 2006 Presidential budget, which calls for awarding funds to meet national preparedness goals and priorities rather than on mandated formulas that bear little relation to need and risk.

It is my concern that our colleagues' alternative approach places too high a priority on providing steady streams of Federal assistance to each State to provide for possible terrorist attacks, with not enough regard to a risk-based consideration. With their proposal, States continue to receive a significant minimum amount, and other States with greater populations and population density get an additional amount. The result, though, is that just over half of the remaining funds are distributed based on risk.

Can the taxpayers afford to keep up that level of support for every State without regard to risk factors as being the predominant concern? Can we afford providing this level of support to every State at the expense of those communities that are most at risk, regardless of whether they happen to be resident in a large State or a small State?

I assert that continuing to spread homeland security funds throughout the Nation without regard to actual risk would be an inefficient approach and would ignore much of what I believe we have learned as part of our efforts to assess our vulnerabilities since the attacks of September 11.

As we have recently learned from the tragic events in London, terror still has the ability and the strength to strike. The effectiveness of our continued vigilance and preparedness relies heavily on the efficient spending of our limited homeland security dollars.

Let me say in closing, at least for this portion of my remarks, I believe Chairman Gregg, the chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Committee, and the entire subcommittee have done a very good job trying to address the concerns I have laid out and that Senator Feinstein and I have addressed, our concerns that these funds be primarily allocated on the basis of risk. But I believe we can do better. I believe we can and should do better, and I believe the optimal formula which provides every State with access to homeland security grant funds but which optimizes the receipt and delivery of those funds based on risk, threat, and consequence is the preferable way to go. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov