Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I would oppose the amendment of my friend from Texas. I understand that she has agreed not to offer the amendment, and instead to just debate the issue at this time. As I noted yesterday, when a similar amendment was offered by the Senator from New York, formula fights are never easy. But they deserve careful deliberation and consideration.

An appropriations bill is where Congress spends money once it has settled on a formula in authorizing legislation. An appropriations bill is not the right place to have a formula fight.

My friend from Texas has raised an issue that falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Government Affairs Committee, which has held three hearings on this topic this year. We have heard from firefighters, police officers, mayors, governors, State emergency management directors, county officials, and Secretary Ridge.

As a result of these hearings, I have developed legislation, on a bipartisan basis, with Senator CARPER and 15 other cosponsors.

Just last month, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved this legislation by a unanimous vote. My legislation would address the very issue that the amendment of the Senator from Texas seeks to address on this appropriations bill.

I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Texas because it would pre-empt a debate that we began in the Governmental Affairs Committee, and that should continue when our legislation reaches the Senate floor.

But I also oppose this amendment because it is bad for Maine—and States across the country. And because I believe it could compromise the security of this great Nation.

This amendment would not only reduce the small State minimum from .75 to .5 percent of the amount appropriated, but it would also make the small State minimum a ceiling, rather than a floor, which it is in current law, and should remain.
Moreover, big States already get plenty under the bill that Chairman COCHRAN and Ranking Member BYRD have so ably crafted.

The bill distributes $1.75 billion to all 50 States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Of this amount, $1.05 billion, or 60 percent, will be distributed strictly based on population, meaning more populous states do well.

In addition, however, the bill sets aside $750 million just for big cities. That means states such as Maine, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alaska will not see a dime of this money—$750 million just for the country's biggest cities—$250 million more than the House appropriated. And yet big States want more.

The Senate should not be considering these kinds of authorizing changes to an appropriations bill.

I know it is tempting to offer amendments like this to appropriations measures—I considered offering my grants bill, or parts of it, as amendments—but the practice must be resisted. It does an end-run around authorizing committees, which are set up to address matters such as these in a deliberate, thorough manner.

Any modifications to ODP's formula should be considered in a comprehensive manner, not as piecemeal amendments. By changing the formula on an ad-hoc basis, we may produce unintended consequences, where a State may end up with insufficient homeland security resources.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose changes to the existing funding formula on this bill.

At the same time, I pledge to work with my friend from Texas to accommodate her legitimate concerns. Big States have big homeland security needs, and the Federal Government has an obligation to help them.