Improving America's Security Act of 2007

IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 06, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I wish to make sure my colleagues recognize that under the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague and friend from California, that States would have absolutely no guarantee at all of minimum funding under the Law Enforcement Terrorist and Prevention Program. This is a very important program. It has provided needed support to public safety agencies across the country for terrorism prevention, training, and information sharing. As the direct result of the LETPP funding over the past several years, State and local law enforcement agencies have become strong partners with homeland security.

I wish to point out one of the most important uses of funds under this program has been to establish with State and local first responders all-source intelligence fusion centers that have been funded primarily through the LETPP program. Clearly, it has been a very successful program, and one of my concerns about the amendment offered by my friend from California is she eliminates the minimum under this program. That means that potentially a State could receive no funding at all under this program.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical to a proposal we voted on last July during the Homeland Security appropriations bill. In fact, we have repeatedly voted on this formula issue. We need to bring all States up to a certain baseline level of preparedness. That does not mean we do not figure in the risk; we do. Indeed, under our bill 95 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program funds and 100 percent of the Urban Area Security Initiative funding will be allocated based on risk.

The Senator's analysis does not look at the impact she would have on all four of the programs included in our bill, yet her amendment does affect all four, and that is the reason our analysis is different.

We cannot assume a precise calculation of risk. A Federal building in Oklahoma City was not an obvious target for a terrorist bombing, and yet we know the tragic attack that occurred in that city.

Rural flight schools were not obvious training grounds for terrorists, and yet we know that terrorists trained in Norman, OK.

Portland, ME, was not an obvious departure point for the terrorist pilots as they began their journey of death and destruction on September 11, and that is exactly what occurred.

My point is that terrorists can and do shelter, train, recruit, plan, prepare, and attack in unlikely places. That is one reason our bill puts so much emphasis on prevention, an emphasis that would be lost in the Senator's amendment.

I urge opposition to the amendment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/