Improving America's Security Act of 2007
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007 -- (Senate - March 05, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise to offer two amendments to the 9/11 Commission recommendations bill. After I have an opportunity to address these amendments, I ask they be set aside so we may proceed with further proceedings on the bill.
I hope we can reach agreement, I say to my friend from Connecticut. I hope we can reach agreement on these amendments, as they are critical to making sure our homeland security dollars are spent wisely in the way that will do the most to protect our Nation.
Nearly 6 years since the tragedy of September 11, Congress finally has the opportunity to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 Commission has done a tremendous job providing our Nation with the tools to make our Nation safer and now is the time for Congress to act and to get it right.
I thank Senators LIEBERMAN and COLLINS for their hard work and dedication to this bill and thank my colleague from New York, Senator Clinton, for joining me on these two important amendments.
We are here today to talk about one of the most important pieces of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations, funding the Homeland Security Grant Program, administered under the Department of Homeland Security. Unfortunately, DHS has not always approached the allocation of vital homeland security dollars the way the 9/11 Commission intended. The 9/11 Commission intended that homeland security funds, including the high-threat Urban Area Security Initiative, UASI, and the State Homeland Security Grant Program, SHSGP, be allocated based on risk. In fiscal year 2006, the most high-risk and high-threat cities in the Nation, New York City and Washington DC, two cities which suffered tremendously from the horror of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, received a 40-percent cut in high-threat UASI funding from DHS. Using a peer review process, DHS made funding decisions based on including popcorn factories and petting zoos, while cities such as New York were forced to cut key security initiatives such as staff patrols on the Brooklyn Bridge and NYPD inspection of backpacks within the New York City subway system.
DHS relied on an untested system of peer review in 2006 to allocate high-threat security funding, and it failed miserably. A 40-percent cut in high-threat funds for our highest risk cities is unacceptable and exactly the opposite of what the 9/11 Commission recommended. Despite the firestorm of criticism that the Homeland Security Department faced for its UASI allocation of funding in 2006, DHS decided once again to use the peer review process when allocating high-threat funding in 2007. That makes one doubt the thinking that is going on in DHS, not only on this issue.
So I ask amendment No. 336 be called up.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. This amendment will bar DHS from using the peer review process when making allocations for high-threat UASI funding. Our most targeted cities should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of an untested bureaucratic process that clearly does not have the best interests of our high-risk cities as its No. 1 priority.
DHS was wrong about the effectiveness of the peer review process, and it has also been off the mark on the amount of homeland security funds that can be used to cover personnel and overtime.
This bill makes clear that different cities under very different levels of risk have very different security needs. We should not be punishing cities such as New York that must rely on personnel to make our cities safer.
One example is our bridges because they have been targeted. The Brooklyn Bridge near my home, which I take back and forth all the time, has two police officers at each end 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That is 20 police officers. If one looks at policeman hours, four times five, five shifts is what it takes to cover 24/7. That kind of funding is essential to the safety of New York, yet it is limited by the process. Our amendment would change that.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. This amendment also addresses a critical shortfall in previous allocations for homeland security funding: the payment of overtime for first responders such as police officers. High-threat cities such as New York can't rely on equipment and technology alone to get the job done. New York City, with its vast population and national landmarks, needs trained, expert personnel guarding its tunnels, bridges, and landmarks to keep New Yorkers and the huge amount of visitors it has every year safe.
Having trained security personnel available at all times to protect our citizens is not an issue unique to New York City. In this difficult budget climate, cities across the country are faced with hard choices when it comes to keeping our citizens safe from terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security should allow our cities and States the ability to fund the activities necessary to protect our citizens.
The potential for terror is not limited to 8-to-5 shifts. We need to give our cities and States the resources they need to do their job. If they should choose to use overtime in funding in their UASI allocation, they should be allowed to do it.
AMENDMENT NO. 335
I also would like to take a moment to talk about Senator Feinstein's amendment that I am cosponsoring along with several of my colleagues. The Feinstein amendment will lower the minimum grant for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to .25, lower than the .45 proposed in the Senate version of the bill. The amendment will also lower the minimum for interoperable communications to .25, down from .75 in the bill. While I appreciate the committee raising the amount of funding for SHSGP funds to $913 million, well above the amount included in the President's 2008 budget, the formula minimums included in the Senate bill provided less funding for New York.
New York is not alone. Other States, such as California and Texas, will also face cuts in funding unless we lower the minimum in the Senate bill. We can't allow our larger cities and most vulnerable targets to be left relatively unprepared for a major attack relative to other cities because they are not given the Federal resources they deserve.
Some in the Senate will make the argument that States across the country have needs that must be addressed, and we need to be prepared in all communities. While I understand their concern, the Senate has recognized that need by authorizing the emergency management performance grants in the same amount as the SHSGP grants and by providing EMPG grants with a .75 minimum to address all-hazard needs across the country.
In addition to EMPG grants, the Senate has also provided a minimum amount of funding for interoperability communications grants, something the city of New York has spent millions on since 9/11 so the rest of the country might implement this valuable technology.
Now is the time for the Senate to do the right thing. While I applaud the overall work of Senators Lieberman and Collins on this important bill, one area we have strayed is in the area of grant funding. I know they come from smaller States. Obviously, they are defending their States. But if we are allocating money on the basis of need, on the basis of where the greatest threat of terrorism is, the funding formula here does not really do the job.
The 9/11 Commission, for instance, neither from a smaller State or bigger State perspective and looking at things objectively, recommends that funding be allocated on risk alone. The minimums allocated in this bill do not do that. One need look only as far as the tragedy of 9/11 to answer the question of why funding for the most targeted cities is the most important.
I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment. We have the opportunity to fix the past mistakes at DHS and ensure that the appropriate amount of funding is distributed in a way that will benefit all and ensure that highest risk areas are adequately protected. Now is that time.
I look forward to working with the committee on these important amendments to the way the bill addresses the grant program. I know the committee shares my commitment to ensuring our first responders and all critical homeland security needs have the funding needed to protect our citizens. The committee has done important work to authorize for the first time funding for the grant programs. I look forward to working with Senators Lieberman and Collins on this issue.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/