Improving America's Security By Implementing Unfinished Recommendations Of The 9/11 Commission Act of 2007--Motion To Proceed
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY BY IMPLEMENTING UNFINISHED RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 9/11 COMMISSION ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - February 27, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise in support of invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation will strengthen our homeland security and will do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
I have worked very closely with the committee's chairman, Senator Lieberman, as well as with the Presiding Officer, a valued member of the committee, and with all of our committee members to shape this important legislation. Indeed, the committee voted unanimously on February 15 to report this bill. The bill before the Senate now is the product of careful collaboration among the members of our committee, State, local, and tribal governments, emergency response providers, the private sector, the administration, and other stakeholders. It has produced legislation that builds on the earlier work of the Committee on Homeland Security over the last 3 years.
During that time, the committee has produced numerous pieces of legislation implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise strengthening our homeland security. In the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress enacted many significant measures to achieve the goals of the 9/11 Commission. In fact, that bill implemented the most sweeping changes in our intelligence community in more than 50 years.
More recently, in the last Congress, we passed measures that greatly strengthened protections for America's cargo ports and chemical facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission report. We also approved an overhaul and reform of FEMA that will help improve our emergency response and prepared negotiation, whether it is through terrorist attack or a natural disaster.
As reported by the Homeland Security Committee, S. 4 builds upon these past successes. It would authorize a comprehensive homeland security grant program that includes four vital programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and property. Our approach to this bill reflects our belief that homeland security is a partnership and that our State and local partners are vital to accomplishing this goal.
I will have much more to say about this bill as the debate proceeds. I will reserve the remainder of my time, if any does remain, and I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to this important bill.
As always, it has been a great pleasure to work with the committee chairman and others, including the Presiding Officer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise to support S. 4, the Improving America's Security Act of 2007. This legislation would strengthen our homeland security and would do so in the spirit that shaped the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
As my colleague and friend Senator Lieberman has already indicated, the Committee on Homeland Security voted unanimously on February 15 to report this bill. The bill before us is the product of careful collaboration among members of our committee; State, local, and tribal governments; emergency response providers; the private sector; the Administration, particularly the Department of Homeland Security; and other stakeholders. This collaboration has produced legislation that builds on the work of the Homeland Security Committee over the last 3 years. During that time, the committee has produced numerous bills implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and otherwise strengthening our homeland security. This bill helps to complete the picture.
The vast majority of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations were enacted in 2004 as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. There were, however, some recommendations that did not make it through the process or were not incorporated into that bill, and those are reflected in the legislation before us.
The Intelligence Reform Act was a bipartisan effort by the Homeland Security Committee, and it made possible the most significant reforms in the structure and operations of our intelligence community in more than 50 years--in fact, since the CIA was created after World War II. Indeed, approximately 39 of the 9/11 Commission's 41 recommendations have been acted on in one form or another. More recently, Congress passed measures that greatly strengthen the protections for America's cargo ports and its chemical facilities--again addressing vulnerabilities highlighted in the Commission's report and by other experts on terrorism. So during the past 3 years, in fact, a great deal has been done to help make our Nation more secure and to improve our defenses and capacity to respond to terrorism attacks.
The Homeland Security Committee also conducted a comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of the Federal, State, and local preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina, our country's first real test of its homeland security apparatus since the attacks on September 11 of 2001. Our investigation found significant failures in emergency planning, preparation, and response at all levels of government. As a result, we issued a comprehensive report that summarized our investigation. Our investigation included 24 public hearings, interviews of more than 400 people, and the review of literally hundreds of thousands of investigations. It also included the issuance of subpoenas because we wanted to make sure we had access to all the information we needed. As a result of this investigation, the committee issued a detailed report and drafted legislation based on those recommendations. That legislation was incorporated into the Homeland Security appropriations bill which the President signed into law last year.
The FEMA Reform Act built upon the 9/11 Commission recommendations already enacted by reforming the structure of FEMA, enhancing its regional role throughout the country, and giving FEMA a primary place within the Federal Government for planning, training, and exercising with State and local officials.
As reported by the Homeland Security Committee then, S. 4 builds upon our past successes. The legislation before the Senate would authorize a comprehensive homeland security grant program. It includes four vital grant programs to assist State, local, and tribal governments in safeguarding our lives and properties in all catastrophes, whether natural or manmade. Taken together, these four grant programs--the Urban Area Security Initiative, the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, and the Emergency Communications and Interoperability Grant Program--will ensure significant and predictable Federal funding for our State and local partners.
The program will support error-prevention activities such as fusion centers, all-hazards planning, training exercises, and the installation of reliable interoperable emergency communications systems. The bill will help to strengthen emergency preparedness and response. It also strikes the right balance between targeting funding to jurisdictions the Department determines to be at the highest risk and ensuring a baseline of adequate funding for prevention and preparedness across the country because we know that our Nation's homeland security is only as strong as its weakest link.
Let me comment in more detail on these programs. With respect to the Urban Area Security Initiative, also known as UASI, the bill retains the current practice directing the Secretary of Homeland Security to award grants based solely on risk of terrorist attacks. Clearly, our largest urban areas present attractive, high-value targets to terrorists. Our legislation, the Lieberman-Collins legislation, recognizes that fact, but it makes one sensible change. The Department's eligibility criteria for UASI grant applications has been, to say the least, arbitrary and controversial. For that reason, our bill would expand the potential pool of applicants beyond the current limit of 45. Instead of requiring the Department to select which cities are eligible to apply, S. 4 would expressly permit the largest 100 metropolitan areas to make their case for funding.
Unfortunately, terrorist attacks do not respect city limits. A major attack could affect--or at least require--responses from many neighboring or regional jurisdictions. We also know that when we take a more regional approach, we have a more
effective response. Our bill raises funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to $913 million from the $525 million appropriated in fiscal year 2007. This funding increase would also correct a serious deficiency in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008. Unfortunately, the administration is calling for only $250 million for this important program. As with the UASI grants, each State would receive funding on the basis of risk but with a minimum award of 0.45 percent of the program funds. This will, once again, ensure a baseline level of preparedness and response activities across the country.
Hurricane Katrina illustrated that many of the actions required to respond to terrorist attacks are identical to those required for natural disasters. That is precisely why S. 4 would expand the emergency management performance grants. The EMPG has been a vital part of our national preparedness for years. Our bill seeks to increase its stature and importance by providing more funding and by authorizing States to use EMPG funds to construct and enhance emergency operation centers. The EMPG emphasizes all-hazards preparation, and the .75 percent minimum allocation and the population-based distribution of the remainder ensures that every State will receive assistance with planning, training, and exercises for vital functions such as evacuation, logistics, continuity of operations of government, and recovery. Those are skills which all States need to develop. Those are minimal levels of preparedness and response essential for every State. Every State has the potential for either a natural disaster or a terrorist attack or some other catastrophe or emergency. That is why it is important we develop that capacity in every State.
It is important for me to emphasize that S. 4 does not change EMPG's allocation formula; it merely codifies existing practice. The EMPG is basic insurance. As the DHS manual for the program observes:
An all hazards approach to preparedness, including the development of a comprehensive program of planning, training, and exercises, encourages an effective and consistent response to any threatened or actual disaster or emergency regardless of the cause.
This view is consistent with the expert testimony before the Homeland Security Committee during our investigation of the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
Now, some people have suggested that guaranteeing minimum funding for State and local preparedness is just another example of pork barrel politics. These people could not be more mistaken. As the Rand Corporation noted in a 2004 report on the preparedness of State and local law enforcement after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001:
Homeland security experts and first responders have cautioned against an overemphasis on improving the preparedness of large cities to the exclusion of smaller communities or rural areas.
Again, I make the point that we need to bring up all areas to a certain baseline level of preparedness. That doesn't mean we don't factor in risk; we do. Indeed, the majority of the funds in this bill would be allocated based on risk, and we provide more risk-based funding than is the case in current law.
The RAND report went on to recognize that much of our Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural areas. We also cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist bombing. Yet, we know a tragic attack occurred in that city. Rural flight schools were not obvious training grounds for hijackers, nor was the Portland, ME, jetport an obvious departure point for terrorist pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on September 11.
My point is that terrorists can shelter, train, recruit, prepare, or attack in unlikely places. In view of this cold reality, our bill requires that at least 25 percent of the funding from the UASI and State homeland security grant programs--that is at least $548 million--be used for terrorism prevention activities by law enforcement agencies.
Sometimes I think we forget the basic truth that if we can prevent a terrorist attack from happening in the first place, that is the best possible approach. We do need to be prepared to respond effectively, but how much better if we can detect and interdict the attack before it occurs. We know from experience here, as well as in other countries, that terrorists can be spotted and attacks intercepted by well-trained local police. The prevention of attacks through better policing must be a focus of our grant programs. The last grant program our bill creates is an emergency communications and interoperability grants program. These grants will help to close the alarming and persistent gaps in our first responders' ability to simply communicate with one another. As the tragic events of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina demonstrated, this is often not the case.
Before the second tower of the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11, the police received a radio message to evacuate, but, tragically, the firefighters never received that message because they used different radios and an incompatible frequency. The result was even more loss of lives. In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the first responders resorted to the use of runners to carry messages by hand from one command center to another because the communications infrastructure was so badly damaged. Well, the events of the magnitude of 9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, fortunately, do not occur every day. There are daily incidents, such as fires, rescues, and hazardous material spills that require different agencies and different jurisdictions to communicate with one another in real time and on demand. This is precisely why the emergency communications grants program is so important.
I will tell you it was very disturbing to hear, during our investigation of Hurricane Katrina, the same kinds of interoperability problems that occurred during 9/11. This is a problem we simply must solve.
Let me comment on some other important features of the bill. It improves protection against terrorists traveling to our country under the visa waiver program by requiring more timely notice from participating countries of lost or stolen passports. It also requires those countries to share more information about travelers who could pose a threat to our security. The bill improves information sharing, establishes multijurisdiction fusion centers in order to encourage information to be shared, and allows the assignment of DHS intelligence analysts to those centers. The bill expands upon a requirement in the Homeland Security Act by requiring DHS to create a prioritized list of critical infrastructure and highest risks for terrorist attacks and other disasters. This list will help protect these critical assets from attacks and enable more effective response when disaster strikes.
The bill also requires that risk assessments be completed for each sector of the economy. Recognizing the need to exercise good stewardship of our taxpayers' money, our bill also includes strong protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. By now, we have all heard the disturbing stories of misspent homeland security grants. In fact, when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, we held hearings looking at how homeland security grants have been spent in some States. Along with Senator Lieberman, I asked the GAO to do an investigation into this area, and GAO testified before our committee. At a time when the needs are so great for equipment, for training, and for more preparedness to strengthen our homeland security, it was very disturbing to hear the GAO testify that money had been wasted.
Let me give you a couple of examples. In the District of Columbia--yes, right here in Washington, DC, surely a high-risk area, an area attacked on Ð9/11--we found that leather jackets were purchased for the local police using homeland security grant money. In Newark, NJ, homeland security funds were used to purchase air-conditioned garbage trucks. This is totally inexcusable, when we have such great needs for new communications equipment, for training and exercises, and for help for our first responders. We simply cannot afford to have money frittered away. It is outrageous.
Our bill would help to eliminate those abuses. It would strictly prohibit the use of grant funds on items that don't relate to securing our homeland. It requires States to have an approved plan and for funds to be allocated, distributed, and spent according to that plan, and to achieve certain baseline preparedness goals. It requires DHS to set minimum performance standards for agency grants, and it provides for audits to ensure accountability.
I know that last safeguard is near and dear to the Presiding Officer's heart and that she understands, perhaps better than anyone in this body, the importance of regular, thorough, and timely audits.
Madam President, I acknowledge the work of Senator Coburn, and many other members of our committee, to strengthen the provisions of our bill. I offered an amendment to make sure that homeland security funds were not used for social or recreational purposes. In short, I think we have tightened up the safeguards and put new measures in to ensure accountability.
I mentioned earlier that our bill proceeds in the spirit of the 9/11 Commission; its provisions for increased and more effective information sharing, for strengthening the privacy and civil liberties oversight board, and for disclosing the total sums requested, authorized, and appropriated for intelligence programs all testified to that amendment.
There are many provisions of the bill reported by the Homeland Security Committee that will improve our security in other ways. I want to note once again, however, that this bill is not a sudden, new, or unusual manifestation of congressional determination to strengthen our security. The bill before us today continues the work of Congress in taking proper notice of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. I am proud to be part of the bipartisan deliberations that shaped this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it.
I want to also acknowledge the tireless efforts of the families of the victims of 9/11. They have worked with Senator Lieberman and me every step of the way when we were drafting the Intelligence Reform and Terrorist Prevention Act in 2004. They were our inspiration and they kept us going. They ensured that the bill got through to the President's desk and signed into law. They have continued to work with us on the bill before us today. I want to publicly thank them for their effort. They inspired our work.
Our legislation's broad-front attack on the threats we face will ensure good value for every dollar our Nation spends to improve our defenses at the Federal and State and local levels. It will provide appropriate transparency and accountability into the Government's security decisions, and it will strike an appropriate balance between increased security and our cherished civil liberties. The passage of this bill will benefit every American.
Let me close by saying I am certain this bill will be improved even further as we proceed with the deliberations this week. I do not support every single provision in this bill. But on balance, it is yet another step forward as we seek to protect the American people.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/