A bill to waive application of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act to a specific parcel of real property transferred by the United States to 2 Indian tribes in the State of Oregon, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, what is the pending business?

I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor to the amendment just introduced by Senator Specter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside so I may call up an amendment.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, it was a typical fall day in New York City. People were headed to work, cars were stuck in traffic, the subways were packed, and the construction crews were busy rebuilding at Ground Zero. Nearby, Con Ed personnel were at work in a manhole, and they made a tragic discovery: ID tags and human remains not seen since that other fall day 5 years earlier. The city paused again. It launched another effort to recover and identify those taken from us on that dark September day.

The recovery is continuing after all this time. The recovery continues 5\1/2\ years later, and just last week more victims were unearthed. After all this time, we are still recovering from September 11. Our prayers remain with the family members and friends who still mourn and miss the fathers and mothers and children who made their lives complete. During the Homeland Security Committee meeting to discuss the underlying bill, I met with some of those loved ones.

That is why we are here today. We are here to do the work that ensures no other family members have to lose a loved one to a terrorist who turns a plane into a missile, a terrorist who straps a bomb around her waist and climbs aboard a bus, a terrorist who figures out how to set off a dirty bomb in one of our cities. This is why we are here: to make our country safer and make sure the nearly 3,000 who were taken from us did not die in vain; that their legacy will be a more safe and secure Nation. That is what lies at the heart of this 9/11 bill. It is not just

about how we send the money from Washington to States and local governments; it is about saving lives and doing everything in our power to prevent another attack, to prevent another tragedy, to ensure no one climbs down a manhole expecting to do their work only to find the deceased left in darkness 5 years earlier. That is why we are here--to protect our people.

Most of us had hoped these steps would have already been taken, would have been taken many years ago, that we would have capitalized on the unity and national spirit we shared after the towers fell, the Pentagon was hit, and the Pennsylvania field smoldered. It is never too late to do, however, what is right for our country.

It has been more than 2\1/2\ years since the 9/11 Commission issued its report. Not only did the panel of dedicated American researchers find out what happened that day, but they also gave a list of serious recommendations about how to make our country safer in the future. The 9/11 Commission showed us how to move beyond the politics of division in order to achieve the solemn task of better protecting our country.

In its report, the Commission said the following:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an

assessment of risks and vulnerabilities [and] federal

homeland security assistance should not remain a program for

general revenue sharing.

This is one of the goals of the 9/11 Commission. My amendment that I just introduced moves us closer to a true system of risk-based allocation of State homeland security grants and ensures that funding goes to areas most at risk of terrorist attacks.

This is not an issue of big States versus little States or urban States versus rural States. It is about good policy and about maximizing our use of the people's money.

Today, the system is set up so that all States receive at least .75 percent of the State Homeland Security Grant Program dollars. After each State receives that minimum level of funding, the dollars are then allocated according to risk. As a result, the current amount of State minimum funding eats up approximately 40 percent of that funding.

While the new bill does attempt to address this problem--and I applaud Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for trying to bring the .75 percent down to .45 percent--the bill does not go far enough. It is a good first step, but we are already 50 yards behind, sending too much money to areas where there are not real risks, threats, and vulnerabilities. That is why we must use the most dollars in those areas which are at the greatest risk of attack. We cannot afford to waste a single cent on places that do not need immediate help when first responders in major cities still lack the basic communications equipment they need to talk to one another if, Heaven forbid, tragedy strikes again.

That is why the families of 9/11 recently issued a statement saying:

Reports of air conditioned garbage trucks being purchased

with homeland security funds are indicative of the frivolity

that results from non risk-based methods. When the threat

against our Nation is so real, we cannot afford not to take

it seriously.

That is why the 9/11 Commission said Congress should not use this money as porkbarrel. That is why in 2005 the Commission issued a report giving the Nation an ``F'' for risk-based funding. That is why 9/11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton recently sent me a letter. He wrote:

Since 9/11 and since the issuance of our report, the United

States has not allocated homeland security resources wisely.

Resources for homeland security are not unlimited, so it is

thus essential that they be distributed based on a careful

analysis of the risk, vulnerability and potential

consequences of a terrorist attack. Adopting such a risk-

based approach would make the best use of our homeland

security resources, and would make the American people safer.

That is why 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer wrote in support of this amendment, saying:

We cannot afford to waste any more money, time or effort.

That is why the amendment I offer today, a bipartisan amendment with the support of Senators Warner, Coburn, Landrieu, Kennedy, Menendez, Clinton, and Schumer, reduces the guaranteed State minimum to .25 percent and allows those States on our northern and southern borders to see an increased minimum of .45 percent. This basic framework was adopted by a wide bipartisan margin in the House in January.

It is time for all of us to approach homeland security funding not as something we can bring home to the States we represent but funding we can use to better protect the United States of America. As we lower the guaranteed amount, we increase the funding available to protect those places most at risk, and 40 States will receive either the same amount or an increase in the funding they need to better protect our borders, our ports, our railways, our subways, our chemical plants, our nuclear powerplants, our food supply, and our firefighters, police officers, and EMTs.

We have waited more than 5 years to better develop our approach to funding our security in a post-9/11 world. Sometimes division and politics have prevented us from doing what we need to do. But I believe those days are finally behind us. We have a real chance to not only learn from our mistakes but to get the job done and better protect our people. That is why we are here--to make our country as safe and secure as we can. That is the common cause we all share. The American people need to see that in us today. The 9/11 Commission experts that from us. The families and friends of the 9/11 victims are owed that from us-- that we will never forget those who died. We will never forget those who are suffering and sick because of their heroism that day. We will never forget that 60 percent of the victims were never identified. We will never forget that we are still recovering from 9/11--and that is why our work goes on.

Mr. President, let me add one last point.

I recognize it is difficult for some to see any shift of funding because it is difficult if that State potentially sees their funding reduced. But even within Illinois, I confront some of these same issues.

The fact of the matter is I have fought at the State level and have said publicly we should make sure risk assessments entirely determine how money within Illinois is allocated. That is the same approach we need to take for the Nation as a whole. Keep in mind my home city of Chicago is actually doing quite well under the current formula. So this is not something that is based solely on any parochial concerns.

I ask unanimous consent that the statements of the 9/11 families, the 9/11 Commission chairman, Lee Hamilton, and 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer be printed in the Record, as well as a chart showing how each State would fare under my amendment.

Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Lieberman and Senator Collins for their hard work on this issue. I acknowledge that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo. It is just that we can do so much better. I ask that we ensure this amendment be included in the final package we vote on.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

If the Senator from Maine will yield, I want to ask a couple of questions based on my understanding. Maybe I am confused.

We based our assessment of which States see an increase, which States do not see an increase, and which States see a decrease under our bill on the CRS analysis, assuming $913 million appropriated. They tell us 34 States will see an increase in funding, 6 States will see the same amount of funding under my amendment to S. 4, and 10 States will see a loss. We have not had the benefit of the analysis that was just presented on that chart indicating 32 States would see a decrease, so I am curious if either the chairman or the Senator from Maine would tell me where they got that statistic. Because I understand the statement was made: Well, the formulas may change, and this was based on the previous formula.

I have no problem with changing the formula so it is more risk-based assessed. But I don't understand how it is that simply because we are going to eliminate some of the flaws of the previous formula that somehow--or the risk assessments, that somehow that is going to change the basic assessment that was made by the Congressional Research Service.

I am happy for either Senator to respond.

Very briefly----

Thank you very much. I want to make clear now, it sounds to me as if we are comparing apples and oranges. Assuming we--which is what CRS did--apply the same formula on my amendment, my amendment would have 34 States see an increase in funding, and 6 States would remain the same. Now, if the funding formula changes, it might change 1 or 2 States, depending on what the risk assessments were, but it is not going to result in 32 States suddenly seeing a decrease in funding. This is a decrease in funding based on the bare minimums without applying any of the additional funding which we know is going to be coming. So it strikes me that chart does not describe at all the reality of what would happen under my amendment. I want to make sure I am clear in terms of what we are preparing here, because the best estimate of how this funding will be impacted is based on the CRS's own assessment of what would have happened this year.

Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.

It is their time.

I certainly yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine to respond to my inquiry.

Madam President, I want to be exactly clear on what we are talking about here so there is no confusion among my colleagues. No one disputes that under my amendment, the minimum funding changes. That is the whole point of the amendment, is to change the minimum funding levels and shift more of the money into the risk-based assessment. So to state that 32 States lose on the minimum funding levels is to state the obvious. That is the point of the amendment.

The point is more money then goes into the risk-based funding, and when you factor that in, unless there is going to be no risk-based funding--I mean I suppose that is a possibility, but I don't think so-- all that money, when you factor it in, will result in, under last year's formula, 34 States gaining and 6 States staying the same.

Now, I also agree with the distinguished Senator from Maine that there were problems with last year's formula, and I am fine with changes to that formula. I have actively supported changes to that formula, including any possible shortchanging of high-risk areas such as Washington, DC or New York.

The point of my amendment is very simple, and that is more money is allocated on the basis of risk. I am not concerned about predetermining where those risks are. That is the job of the Department of Homeland Security, and that is the purpose of our amendment.

I want to be clear. Under your chart, Illinois loses money that is guaranteed under the minimum funding, as does New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Louisiana. But I would note that Senators Menendez, Coburn, and Landrieu were all cosponsors because they understand when the money is allocated based on risk, then wherever we live throughout the United States, we are going to be potentially better off.

I am going to make one last point and then I am happy to listen to a response. Both Senators Lieberman and Collins talked about an all- hazards funding approach. I have no objection to that either. But keep in mind, we are talking here about the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is not supposed to be targeted at all hazards. We have a separate program--the Emergency Management Grant Program--that is supposed to be addressing all hazards and that is why this amendment does not touch that portion of homeland security funding that is directed at all hazards. That is not the purpose of the State Homeland Security Grant Program. The purpose of that is supposed to be to deal with potential terrorist threats. That is why the 9/11 Commission and Chairman Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission and the 9/11 families, all of whom I think have great concern about the safety of all Americans, indicate it makes sense for us to allocate this as much on the basis of risk as possible.

It is for that reason that the House allocated funding on the basis of the formula we are discussing. I wish to make sure that anybody who is listening understands, yes, the guaranteed minimum funding might be less for 32 States, but that is because more of the money goes into the pot based on risk. When you add the funding that will be allocated on the basis of risk, then we can assume that at least 34 States would see an increase under my amendment, and 6 States would see about the same amount of funding. If the formula changes, it is conceivable that instead of 34 States, it may be 32 States or 36 States that see an increase in funding; instead of 6 States with the same amount under both amendments, it might be 4 States or 8 States. But the basic principle is that the funding is going to be allocated on risk. The Emergency Management Planning Grant Program deals with all-hazards funding.

Madam President, I have a very quick comment, and then I will yield to the Senator from New Jersey, who wants to speak on this amendment. I wish to make perfectly clear that the statement made by the Senator from Delaware is absolutely right. Every State has some risks. I have no doubt that Delaware has chemical plants and there are ports and various facilities that constitute real risk. Under the formula I am advocating, the funding is allocated on the basis of risk that will take into account such infrastructure. The notion somehow that the Department of Homeland Security will not take chemical plants into account is simply incorrect.

Rural States, small States, large States--for all states, all of the allocations that are made, other than the .25 percent guaranteed level of funding, would be made on the basis of risk. The Department of Homeland Security will presumably make an educated, expert assessment on the risk that exists in Delaware, Maine or Connecticut. So it is not as if those States would not be getting money under this amendment. It is simply that the judgment of those experts, who are paid to determine what the threats are and what the risks are, would be the guiding basis upon which we make these decisions.

Madam President, I would like to yield the remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.

The Senator from New Jersey has been waiting for quite some time.

Madam President, I thank my distinguished colleague from New Jersey for an eloquent summation of what this amendment is about. What I would like to do is reiterate my response to some of the issues that were raised by the distinguished Senators from Connecticut and Maine.

No. 1, we are talking about real money. We don't have exact figures, but let's assume we are talking about around $80 million that would be shifted from guaranteed funding to the States and instead would be allocated on the basis of risk. That $80 million will mean firefighters are getting the equipment they need in States that have higher risks. It will mean more money will be available for interoperability systems. It means this money will be allocated to States that have chemical plants and nuclear plants in higher proportion than those States that do not. In each case, this money, under my amendment, will be allocated on the basis of the risk assessments made by experts, as recommended under the 9/11 Commission Report, and will not be allocated simply on the basis that every State gets a piece of the pie regardless of risk, threats and vulnerabilities.

To go back to the issue of how many States benefit or lose, my main point is that we all win when the money is allocated on the basis of risk. We all win. Every State wins. But in terms of the estimates of which States gain and which States lose, I reiterate, the chart that was put up by the Senator from Maine is only talking about the amount of money that is allocated on the basis of guaranteed funding, not based on risk. The additional funding, the lion's share of the funding, as the Senator from Delaware stated, will be allocated on the basis of risk, and once you factor that in, then you can be assured that the overwhelming majority of States will get more money under my amendment than they will under the underlying bill. That is the central point. Don't get confused when it is stated that 32 States stand to lose money under this amendment. They stand to lose the guaranteed money because more money goes back into risk assessment, and once it is put back into the States, then you will see a majority of States gaining under my amendment.

Madam President, there is one last point I wish to reiterate. One of the seemingly plausible arguments made by the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine was that we want an all-hazards funding approach--hurricanes, natural disasters. We want to make sure that money is fairly allocated. I reiterate, that is not the point of this program. We have another program that allocates on the basis of all hazards. That is the Emergency Management Planning Grant Program.

So if they want to make an argument that money should be allocated to all States at a certain percentage to guarantee minimum funding for all hazards funding, that is entirely sensible, but that is not what this funding stream is all about. This funding stream is supposed to address the specific risks and

threats of terrorism. So if we want to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report, then we must protect against those particular risks for which the program is designed.

I appreciate the healthy debate. This does not always happen on the floor of the Senate. I thank my colleague from Connecticut, the chairman of the committee, for entertaining as many questions as he did, and I thank him for his patience.

I reiterate that the underlying bill is an improvement over the status quo, but the same principles that drove the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Maine to change and reduce the amount of minimum funding each State obtains is the same principle of my amendment. I just take it a step further.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that if you applied the manner of calculating funding that was up on the chart behind the Senator from Maine, it is not clear to me you wouldn't see a whole bunch of States losing under the change the Chairman has proposed as well. But what he realizes and the reason he thinks the underlying bill makes sense is because that money is going to be distributed based on risk, and in the end a lot of States will do better. This amendment is no different. It simply takes it a step further in line with what the House has done and in line with what the 9/11 Commission Report recommends.

I urge all my colleagues to join on this amendment. I believe it will be an improvement not just for some States but for the entire country.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Menendez, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw amendment No. 352, which he had introduced earlier today.

On his behalf, I send another amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. I will yield to him in a moment.

I am pleased to note the presence of the Senator from Illinois, who has come to the floor to propose an amendment with regard to the funding formula in the bill. This would make the third such amendment. I hope we will have a good, hearty debate on those three and then go to votes either later today or tomorrow morning on them which, of course, I hope will reject all three and sustain the wisdom of the committee, but that will be determined by the body.

I yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Amendment No. 286 to Amendment No. 275

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Illinois for his thoughtful statement on his amendment. I rise to respectfully disagree with it.

In our committee, we work very hard to not just balance the political interests, but to balance the needs of all parts of our country for a reasonable amount of homeland security funding, which we, consider, I think, consistent with the most progressive thinking on this subject which is to be not just terrorist-related funding but all-hazards- related funding.

In other words, when we send homeland security funding to a State or a municipality, we are trying to help them not only prepare for the possibility, God forbid, of a terrorist attack but also to be ready to respond to the much more common occurrence, which is to say a natural disaster. The funding formula we have presented, which was part of our bill that came out of our committee with strong bipartisan support, including the support of the

distinguished occupant of the chair, the Senator from Delaware, is I think a balanced proposal.

This distributes, in fact, most of the homeland security grant money based on risk, as the 9/11 Commission called for, but respectfully disagrees with the Commission that the money should all be distributed based on only risk because our conclusion is not based on theory but reality. Terrorists may strike anywhere in this country, not just in the big cities or the highest visibility targets, and we base that on what has happened around the world, what has happened here, in fact, with domestic terrorism, striking at the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, as we all remember some years ago, but around the world, terrorists striking at apartment buildings, discos, schools, in communities large and small.

Unfortunately, in this age we are living in post-9/11, we can all imagine, and I use that term in the way the 9/11 Commission did, that part of our failure as a nation before 9/11 was a failure of imagination, which is to say that we could not imagine that human beings would do what the terrorists did to us on 9/11.

After that, we started to imagine, and one can imagine the various targets in this open society of ours that terrorists who want to create havoc and fear can strike all around the country.

The other point is this, that everyplace in the country, as we saw in the case of Katrina, most visibly and movingly, can be struck by natural disasters. So the funding formula in the committee bill learns both from the tragic lessons of 9/11 and Katrina.

We have different grant programs. The Urban Area Security Initiative, the so-called UASI Grant Program, is totally and strictly, in terms of the 9/11 Commission, distributed based on risk. In fact, the State Homeland Security Grant Program which Senator Obama's amendment deals with, we think 95 percent of that will be given out based on risk.

Let me give a brief explanation of what is happening. This is in the weeds, but under current law, .75 percent is guaranteed--of the total funding for the State Homeland Security Grant Program--is guaranteed to each State. That is a minimum for each State for the reasons I have stated.

The House of Representatives, in their judgment, altered that and went to a minimum amount of .25. They did not literally respond to the 9/11 Commission recommendation for total risk, which is to say, whatever the Department of Homeland Security decided is a risk assessment formula for distribution, they lowered it to .25, as the amendment from the Senator from Illinois would do. The committee decided to reach for a compromise on this one and set a minimum of .45 percent of the total funding for every State.

We have done some runs on this. The formula says that, distribute the funds first based on risk, but then if States fall below the .45 percent, then give them that minimum. By our run of the numbers, based on the risk assessment standards the Department has been using, we think 95 percent of the money will, in fact, be distributed based on risk.

I wish to make this point, something that I think is sometimes overlooked in the discussion. Take the existing formula which has .75, three-quarters of 1 percent of the total, going to each State. The fact is, even under that formula, which only Senator Leahy, in his wisdom, would preserve in his amendment--even under that formula, the lion's share of the money, or a very large share of the money, has gone to a very few States.

This graph shows that. The fact is, this is fiscal year 2006 funding. In fiscal year 2006, the State of California received $226 million in homeland security grant funding. That is more than the total received by the 22 States at the bottom that received the least funding, the minimum.

Now, as you can see in this chart, that is California. Next is New York. Next is Texas. The fact is almost half of the entire distribution of funding went to five States: California, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and of course New York. So what I am saying is that we are lowering that. I think the big States, the high-visibility potential targets are receiving a lot of money. It would be unfair to cut that even more. Now, Senator Feinstein does not only do what Senator Obama does, she cuts into the minimums we have established in the new dedicated grant funding program for interoperability communications.

There I think we have a very strong argument that we want people, our first responders, to be able to communicate with one another, not only in acts of terrorism--in times of terrorism--but in times of natural disaster. The interoperability grants are important for that reason.

We have placed a chart on the desks of all the Senators, and it lists all the States. It shows that under the amendment the Senator from Illinois has introduced, 32 of the States will receive less guaranteed funding than they receive now.

Ironically, the District of Columbia is one of the entities that suffers the greatest cut. Of course, most anybody would say that the District of Columbia is a high-visibility target, in fact, was targeted through the Pentagon on 9/11/2001.

Respectfully, I will oppose the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.

I yield the floor.

I will start a response. Senator Obama has circulated a document which indicates if this formula is applied, I believe 34 States will get more money than under our proposal. We have a chart we are circulating which says that, in fact, 32 States lose. That is translated into the map here. Here is what the difference is, because in some sense we are measuring different things. In our chart, we are measuring the guaranteed funding of .45 under ours and .25 under that of the Senator from Illinois. The reason we are doing that is because that is all we can say with certainty that is guaranteed. We are both in fact using the same bottom line or top line, which is $913 million, which is the level the bill, S. 4, authorizes for the State Homeland Security Grant funding. The reason this says 32 States and the District of Columbia will lose guaranteed funding under the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is because that is what we have studied: the guaranteed minimum. Because the rest is an assessment of risk that is left to the Department of Homeland Security which it applied this year and it has already said it would never apply again because it was so criticized by New York and others.

So let me in fairness yield--it takes two of us to equal the Senator from Illinois on this.

We will roundrobin. I yield to my friend from Illinois.

Madam President, very briefly, this is an important debate. I say this to my friend from Illinois about the CRS estimate of his amendment.

If you take the risk analysis the Department of Homeland Security applied for this year, those numbers look correct. But what we are saying is we know the Department of Homeland Security would not use that same risk analysis because they have said so. We also know the risk analysis has changed year by year through the Department of Homeland Security. I am going to be real local about this. My hometown, New Haven, CT, in the fiscal year 2004 grant, got a grant under the Homeland Security Grant Funding Program, specifically the Urban Area Security Initiative. In the years since then, because the risk analysis changed, New Haven has received zero UASI money. So that is the basis on which we contend that the Senator's amendment would amount to 32 States getting less money than they would under our proposal.

Our proposal is evaluated based on the guaranteed minimum because that is all we will know for sure after we adopt the law.

My friend from Illinois is good, but he has not reached the level of prophet. None of us can know--perhaps Secretary Chertoff--what the Department of Homeland Security will use as a risk analysis formula in the years ahead. The top five States are getting about half of the homeland security grant funding now at the .75 level, and we are coming in, in the spirit of compromise, at .45. So they will probably get a larger share of that money--California, Florida, Texas, Illinois and, of course, New York.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Illinois. It has been a good debate. Again, we don't have these often enough on the floor.

I hope our friends understand the difference. Again, we know we are basing our comparison of the two formulas on the guaranteed minimums, which are the only things we can be sure about. My friend from Illinois takes the risk assessment from this year and projects it forward. It happens to have underfunded the District of Columbia, which is why they lose under this proposal as well. I will leave that for the moment and simply say that we are having a good debate about how to distribute the money.

One thing I believe we all agree on--I know my friend from Illinois and I certainly do--is that the Federal Government has been underfunding the State Homeland Security Grant Program and all the others. So while we have these significant arguments about how to divide the pie, the other part of this debate--which, fortunately, we have an agreement on--is that the pie should be bigger.

In this bill, for State homeland security grants, we go back to the high level of fiscal year 2004, $3.1 billion. Quite shockingly, the administration has lowered the money in each of the years since then, though no one's estimate would say the threat to homeland security is less than it was in 2004. That agreement we have, though we have a mutually respectful disagreement about how to divide the pie.

While we are on this subject, there was a reference earlier on the question of how the money is being spent. We hear references to this now famous air-conditioned garbage truck from New Jersey. Likewise, there was apparently a police department that is purported to have purchased leather jackets for its officers. Presumably, allegedly, these items where purchased with State homeland security grant funds. If, in fact, that is what happened--although there is some suspicion that the air-conditioned garbage truck was bought with funds that came through the Department of Justice, not the State homeland security grant funding--it was, obviously, wrong and unacceptable. This has been used to undercut support for the program generally.

I assure my colleagues, however they vote on the funding formula-- and, incidentally, New Jersey is one of the States, as the Senator from New Jersey indicated, that would gain under the amendment of the Senator from Illinois high-risk States can misspend money just as easily as low-risk States. In fact, they have more money to spend, so the probability is higher.

Here is what I want to assure my colleagues: S. 4, the underlying bill, is designed to make sure the money we send back to the States and localities is spent for homeland security. Under Homeland Security Presidential Directive No. 8, the Department of Homeland Security has issued target capabilities for prevention, preparedness, and response that all communities must be able to achieve. What are target capabilities? They include risk management, citizen preparedness, information sharing, intelligence gathering, and medical triage--all necessary elements of homeland security and disaster response.

Under the Post Katrina Act that stemmed from our committee's investigation of Government failures during Hurricane Katrina, the Senate and the House and the President implemented these target capabilities as statutory requirements. So S. 4 requires that all homeland security grants must be spent in a way that works to reach the specific target capabilities stipulated by the Department of Homeland Security and the national preparedness goal. Obviously, this air- conditioned garbage truck would be an illegal expenditure, as would the purported purchase of leather jackets for a police department somewhere in America. In turn, each of these expenditures, whether at the State, local, or tribal level, must be consistent with a State homeland security plan that is required by S. 4.

S. 4 authorizes specific uses for the grants; among which are the following:

Developing plans and risk assessments, which are essential for the optimal and most efficient allocation of resources;

Designing, conducting, and evaluating training and exercises, including for mass evacuations, as we learned was so essential in Hurricane Katrina;

Purchasing and maintaining equipment, such as interoperable communications devices that are critical to responding to a disaster;

Additional measures, including overtime personnel costs, when required to respond to an increase in the threat level under the Homeland Security Advisory System;

The protection of critical infrastructure and key resources; and

Establishing fusion centers that comply with specific information- sharing guidelines as described in title I of this bill.

S. 4 also ensures that the Department has the flexibility to approve activities funded by the grants, but again, all expenditures must be tied to the achievement of target capabilities.

Additionally, S. 4 contains explicit restrictions on the use of homeland security grants: We prohibit funds from being spent on recreational or social purposes.

These provisions, backed up by extensive accountability and audit requirements, will ensure that funds are spent in the most efficient and effective way possible. Some have suggested that the misuse of grant funds in the past has been a result of extraneous funds being distributed in the form of a State minimum. But, in fact, I point out that the air-conditioned garbage trucks were purchased by New Jersey--a State which my colleagues have pointed out is one of the higher-risk States, and has, in fact, received a significant portion of antiterrorism funding. Likewise, the leather jackets were purchased by the D.C. Police Department--again, one of the areas of the country with the highest risk assessments. So no State should be considered immune from such expenses, and it is wrong to imply a link to State minimums. S. 4 will ensure that each grant awarded is tied to a carefully analyzed homeland security plan, and is expended for a specific target capability.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I have no objection, obviously, to the Senator from Oklahoma proceeding to the discussion. I want him to know that Senator Collins and I are negotiating a consent agreement on votes on the funding formulas and we may, with the Senator's permission, interrupt him as he goes forward if we reach that agreement.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4:10 p.m. today the Senate resume debate on the following amendments, and that the time until 5:30 p.m. run concurrently: Feinstein amendment No. 335, Obama amendment No. 338, and Leahy amendment No. 333; that all time be divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and the sponsors of the amendments; that no amendments be in order to any of the amendments covered under this agreement prior to the vote; that there be 2 minutes of debate between each vote; that the amendments be voted in the order listed under this agreement, and that at 5:30 p.m., without further intervening action or debate, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to each amendment covered under this agreement.

I would object for the moment pending a conversation between the Senator from Oklahoma and the managers of the bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of the time allocated to me to the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Rockefeller, who will speak on another matter than the three amendments but is sympathetic to the position I am taking on the three amendments.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Coleman and Senator Coburn be added as cosponsors to the Collins amendment No. 342.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois to reduce the minimum guarantee to States under the State Homeland Security Grant Program.

My colleague and friend from Connecticut has done an excellent job explaining the problems with this amendment. Let me reinforce a few of the points he has made. As my colleagues can see from the chart behind me, under Senator Obama's amendment, 32 States and the District of Columbia would have a decrease in the guaranteed funding. Under the Obama amendment, two previous targets of attack, both the District of Columbia and Oklahoma, would receive less guaranteed funding than 18 other States. Indeed, Senator Obama's own projections show that the District of Columbia, presumably one of the highest risk areas in the country, would lose almost 45 percent of its total funding under his proposal

I think we need to keep in mind that assessing risk is not an exact science. Who would have guessed that Portland, ME, would have been the departure point for two of the hijackers on 9/11? Who would have guessed that four of the hijackers would train and live in Norman, OK? Who would have guessed that two of the hijackers would have spent considerable time in Stone Mountain, GA? My point is the evidence is clear that terrorists train, hide, and transit through more rural areas, which is one reason that the chairman and I have put such emphasis on preventing terrorist attacks and have allocated a percentage of funds to be used specifically for that purpose.

Now I wish to specifically address the chart that is being circulated by the distinguished Senator from Illinois. The breakdown of the winners and losers under his amendment on his chart relies upon the Department of Homeland Security allocating future risk-based funding in the same manner as it did in 2006. We know that is not going to happen. The process by which the Department allocated funding based on its risk analysis was denounced all around. I could quote the Senators from New York and California, as well as the Senator from Connecticut, Minnesota, and myself. All of us believed that whether we represented big States, small States or medium-sized States, the methodology was flawed.

Indeed, the Department has moved away from that methodology. So it is a false assumption to assume the exact same risk analysis is going to be used in future years, when, in fact, we know it would not be. I wish to point out, in fiscal year 2006, 60 percent of the Homeland Security Grant funds were allocated based on risk. We are requiring that an estimated 95 percent be allocated based on risk, but we want that risk formula reported to Congress. We want to take a look at it. We are working with the Department on it. If we

are going to become better prepared as a nation, all States must have a predictable, steady stream of homeland security funding. We need to bring all States up to reach minimum levels of preparedness, because otherwise the terrorists will exploit the weak links.

We also know many of the parts of our critical infrastructure are located in more rural areas. Nuclear powerplants are a prime example. Military bases are yet another example. So the problem is one cannot assume the only targets are in large urban areas. That is not true.

There was another point the Senator from Connecticut made that is a very important point, and that is this is an all-hazards approach to funding. As the Presiding Officer well knows, because he participated so actively in the investigation held by the Homeland Security Committee into the failed response to Hurricane Katrina, there is virtually no area of our country that is immune from natural disasters. The same kinds of communications equipment that come into play when there is a terrorist attack are also needed when a hurricane or an ice storm or an earthquake strikes. So I think we have struck the right balance in our proposal.

Now, I would note the Senator's proposal does not hit my home State. It does not hurt Maine, because he has additional funding for border States, so I am not arguing out of a parochial interest. I am arguing for the formula in our bill because it takes an all-hazards approach. It understands all States have vulnerabilities. It recognizes we need to improve every link in the chain, that we need to bring all States up to minimal levels of preparedness, and they are simply not there now. It recognizes we need predictable funding streams so that States, regions, and communities can enter into multiyear projects, because a lot of these projects, such as with interoperable communications, require more than 1 year to get to the goal.

The potential of terrorist attacks against rural or at least nonurban targets is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. Our committee held hearings on the threat of agri-terrorism--an attack on our food supply. That would be devastating for our Nation. A study conducted by the Harvard School for Public Health shows rural areas face profound homeland security challenges. A great many power and water supplies, as well as virtually our entire food supply, are located outside of urban areas.

The RAND Corporation has repeatedly warned:

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, that report recognized much of the Nation's infrastructure and potential high-value targets are located in rural areas.

I hope our colleagues will join us in voting against the amendment offered by the Senator from Illinois. I truly believe it would not advance the goal we all share of strengthening our homeland security.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Madam President. I thank the Senator from Illinois so that I may respond to his questions.

The only thing we can count on is what the minimum is going to produce. CRS, the same as the Senator from Illinois, used last year's DHS risk assessment--a risk assessment we already know DHS has abandoned; a risk assessment that resulted in significant cuts in funding to New York City; a risk assessment that was roundly criticized by virtually every member of our Homeland Security Committee. What we are trying to do is to share with our colleagues what we know for sure, and what we know for sure is what the impact of the minimum funding percentage is under our proposal versus under the proposal of the Senator from Illinois.

What we did is we looked at what the guaranteed funding--that is why it says guaranteed funding--would be under Senator Obama's amendment, and as you see 32 States and the District of Columbia would lose under the amendment. I say to my friend from Illinois that I am surprised he would want to cut funding for the District of Columbia when that is a high-risk area that did not do well under the Department's formulation of applying risk

and thus does not do well under the formula of the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. OBAMA addressed the Chair.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, earlier today, the Senate tabled an amendment offered by the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint, that would have struck all of the provisions in the bill related to the employment rights of the employees of the Transportation Security Administration,

TSA. Last night, I filed an amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Voinovich, Senator Warner, Senator Sununu, Senator Coleman, and Senator Stevens that seeks to strike a middle ground in this area.

Through our committee's work on homeland security, it has become clear that the ability to respond quickly and effectively to changing conditions, to emerging threats, and to crisis situations is essential. From the intelligence community to our first responders, the key to this response is flexibility, putting assets and, more importantly, personnel where they are needed, when they are needed.

My question about giving TSA employees the right to collectively bargain is whether this additional right would hamper flexibility at this critical time.

I have been a strong supporter of Federal employees throughout my time in the Senate. I very much appreciate the work they do not only in the Department of Homeland Security but throughout the Federal Government. It is my hope that we will be able to work cooperatively to forge a compromise that preserves the needed flexibility that has been described to us in both classified sessions and open hearings while protecting the rights of TSA employees. These are employees who are working hard every day to protect us.

The TSA is charged with great responsibility. In order to accomplish its critical national security mission, the Aviation Transportation Security Act provided TSA with the authority to shift resources and to implement new procedures daily--in some instances hourly--in response to emergencies and changing conditions. This authority enables TSA to make the best and fullest use of its highly trained and dedicated workforce.

We have already seen the benefit of this flexibility. In both the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the thwarted airline bombing plot in Great Britain last year, TSA was able to change the nature of its employees' work and even the location of their work in response to these emergencies. Last December, when blizzards hit the Denver area and many local TSA officers were unable to get to the airport, the agency acted quickly, flying in voluntary TSOs from Las Vegas to cover the shifts and covering the Las Vegas shifts with officers transferred temporarily from Salt Lake City. Without the ability to rapidly ask for volunteers and deploy them to Denver, the Denver airport would have been critically understaffed while hundreds, perhaps thousands, of travelers were stranded. This flexibility is essential.

The legislation before the Senate is designed to implement the unfulfilled recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Most of those recommendations were enacted in 2004, but when we look at this report we don't see recommendations about changing the employees' conditions at TSA. Before we so dramatically change the TSA personnel system, we must ensure that we do not interfere with TSA's ability to carry out its mission.

That doesn't mean the status quo is adequate. I believe we know enough now that we should proceed with providing TSA employees important protections enjoyed by other Federal employees. Let me mention two such important protections with which we should proceed. The first is to bring them under the Whistleblower Protections Act. There is simply no reason TSA employees should not enjoy the formal protections and procedures set forth in that act.

Second, these TSA employees should have the same kinds of rights as other Federal employees to appeal adverse employment actions-- disciplinary actions, for example, demotions, even firings--to the Merit System Protection Board. That would give them an independent agency to review their complaints, and that is an important protection as well.

In addition to these two very important provisions, the amendment makes clear that TSOs have the right to join labor unions. My amendment also requires TSA to establish a pay-for-performance system. That already exists in the agency, but we want to codify that.

Finally, the amendment would require TSA and the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to report to Congress in 1 year to assess employment matters at TSA, indicating what further changes, if any, should be made in the TSA personnel system.

I believe this takes the right approach. This is not an all-or- nothing debate, and yet that is what we seem to have boiled it down to. I urge my colleagues to take a look at the amendment. I am very pleased to have the cosponsorship of several Senators, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to vote on it, if not today, tomorrow.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that the time be charged equally between both parties.

Madam President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Wyoming.

Madam President, was the time running under the quorum call being charged equally or just to one side?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that any further quorum calls between now and the beginning of the votes at 5:30 be counted equally against both sides.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, to be charged equally.

Madam President, on behalf of another Senator--not myself--I do object.

Madam President, in order for the Senator from Missouri to speak, would the Senator from Maine or one of the sponsors have to yield time to him?

How much time does the Senator from Maine have remaining?

Madam President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Missouri.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I want to discuss an amendment that has been previously called up, amendment No. 294. This is an amendment on the 9/11 bill.

I will be happy to yield for a question.

I will be more than happy to be interrupted by the chairman.

Mr. President, I am a member of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, as is the Presiding Officer today. We have gone through this bill--this is the second time--looking at 9/11 and what we need to do in terms of our risk, in terms of how we protect the homeland.

As this bill is drafted, its implementation authority never expires. It never stops. So what we have is approximately $4 billion a year from now on. Actually, what we say is: however much money is needed in year four of the bill to be spent on homeland security, whether or not we need to or whether it is time to relook at the priorities of the bill.

This is an amendment that I offered in committee. I got one Democratic vote for it and my own. But what this amendment does is sunset this bill in 5 years and says it is time to take a look at it again.

One of the critical things we did following 9/11 was the PATRIOT Act, and we sunset it. Last year we took it up again and we sunset a good portion of it again. So we will look at it again.

This bill is never sunset. It is like the hundreds of other bills this body has passed, that we pass and we never look at again. We never do oversight. We never make the decisions. We just let the money keep rolling out the door and charging it to our grandchildren. This is a very simple, straightforward amendment.

All this amendment says is that 5 years from now, this one goes ``time out,'' it is over, do it again with a fresh look at the problems that we face in this very dangerous world, a fresh look at the success we have made, the accomplishments today, and ask where we need to go.

The bill, as written, assumes that nothing in the future, in terms of our risk, is going to change. I would put forward 5 years from now everything will have changed in terms of the risks that we are going to face. If we have done our jobs right with this bill, many of the areas of preparedness that we are attempting to direct funds to in this bill will be solved. Why should we continue to have money going to areas that we have solved rather than redirect money to areas that we have not solved, or maybe for our children's sake, not spend any money because there is no need other than the need for politicians to tell people at home that we sent money to them.

So this is a very simple, very straightforward amendment that says improving America's security by implementing the unfinished recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

Act of 2007 will cease having an effect on December 31, 2012.

Good government is what the American people both expect and desire. They also deserve good government. They deserve the wisdom of knowing we cannot know what is in the future today, so let's limit what we do until we can relook at it again.

Having held 46 hearings with Senator Carper in the last 18 months on the Federal Financial Management Subcommittee of the Homeland Security and the Government Affairs Committee, what we know is what Congresses have done in the past have created about $200 billion worth of waste per year in this country.

Now, sadly, the Congress refuses to address those duplications, the fraud and the waste that is associated with that $200 billion worth of waste, fraud, and abuse. We should not add to that. We should not have a program that goes on ad nauseum addressing needs of today and saying it is OK.

All I am asking with this amendment, and I think most commonsense Americans would ask, what is so hard about saying this ends and we have to look at it again in 2012? Make the decision again based on what the very real risks are and, oh, we might even consider what our financial condition is when we decide what we are going to spend on security and what else might ought not be paid for by the Federal Government as we fund homeland security and protect this Nation.

This provision will cause us to review the needed programs and authorize spending. It will cause us to make better decisions 5 years from now than we can make today.

I will draw the corollary as a primary care physician, what I know about my 55-year-old patients with hypertension and high cholesterol. And I am going to have an example today. I said: Here is what you need to do for the next 5 years. Do not come back and see me. Your risks probably are not going to change. I can predict exactly what you are going to need. Do not worry. I will just give you prescriptions for the next 5 years.

That is what we are doing on this bill. We are not doing it for just 5 years, we are doing it for the rest of the patient's life. We would never go to a physician who treated us that way. Yet that is the way this bill approaches the future.

What are the reasons to oppose this bill? One is lack of a desire to tackle the hard job of looking at this again in 5 years. One is arrogance; we know what we are going to need. There is no way we can. Political expediency, that might have something to do with it, to be able to tell the special interest groups and our campaign donors that we have got them taken care of for the next 10 years.

I quote my chairman for whom I have the utmost respect. Here is what his quote was on the PATRIOT Act.

The best thing we did with the PATRIOT Act was to sunset

it, was to say that it needs to be reauthorized or it will go

out of existence. And we are going to look back and see what

happened with the PATRIOT Act so we can make a better

decision in the future.

I have trouble not understanding why that same wonderful logic and great common sense should not be applied to this bill.

Senator Reid in 2005:

But we are currently considering renewal of those

provisions that were considered so expensive or so vulnerable

that Congress wisely decided for a 4-year sunset.

The author of the act wanted Congress to reassess in a more deliberative manner with the benefit of experience. We are presented with an opportunity again now, 4 years later, to get it right. Why would we not want to sunset this bill? I have even a bigger one. Why do we not want to sunset every bill, to go back and look at it and reassess it so we get rid of the waste, the fraud and duplication, to do the very things that we were sent to do?

I will not spend a great deal more time. I recognize that the ranking member, Senator Collins, and Senator Lieberman have some business they want to consider. I would remind Senators there is no score on this bill. CBO hasn't scored this bill. We know the one from the House was $20 billion. Should we not look at $20 billion worth of spending again in 5 years and ask if it is under our priorities? Were we wise? What have we learned? What can we do better? What worked? What did not work?

Why would we not want to do that? I think it is a no-brainer to sunset this bill so that we, in fact, can learn from our mistakes, learn from our priorities, look at the world the way it will be 5 years from now rather than the way the world is today, and also, yes, consider the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves.

I also am adamantly opposed to any piece of legislation that says, ``such sums.'' Well, does this legislation mean we want to spend $100 billion 6 years from now? That is what we are saying if we are giving to the Appropriations Committee all our power to make the decision on areas that are under our purview 6 years from now. Don't we believe we ought to do that? I believe we ought to maintain that power, and actually it is not 6 years, it is 4 years from now because in the fourth year is when we do that.

Congress needs more sunsets, not fewer sunsets. We have an inexcusable situation that we have seen today with much of the Government operating on expired authority--expired authority. Madam President, $170 billion of what was appropriated last year was under expired authority.

Congress has not done its job to reauthorize those programs. So let's look at this again in 5 years, in 2012. We can start with January 2012. By the end of that year we can have said: Here is what we need to do for 2013. We will do it with wisdom; we will be able to do it with insight. We also will be able to do it with competence that we know what is best for our country, which we cannot predict today under this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that after the three votes I be recognized on the floor for another amendment.

Madam President, there is a procedural process that is missing.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 20, S. 372, the Intelligence authorization, 2007; that the Rockefeller-Bond amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that a statement by Senator Rockefeller be printed in the Record as if read, without intervening action or debate.

Madam President, let me take this opportunity to thank many people but not the particular Senator who is objecting--1 out of 100. Nevertheless, Senators Reid, Bond, myself, and others have worked very hard to move this fiscal year 2007 Intelligence authorization bill forward. All parties have been enormously supportive in this effort. It is one of the more embarrassing efforts I have been associated with in my 24 years in this body. I must express my dismay, my absolute dismay. I will hold it to that.

Despite considerable efforts on the part of the chairman and Vice Chairman Bond and extensive efforts and negotiations to get agreement on this bill, there is still an objection from one Senator for its consideration. Is it just another bill? Not quite. The Senate's failure to pass this critical national security legislation for the past 2 years is remarkably shocking and inexcusable.

In 2005, the Senate failed, for the first time since the establishment of the congressional intelligence committees, to pass an annual Intelligence authorization bill. That means for 27 years we passed authorization bills for the Intelligence Committee. It is not an inconsequential committee. It instructs how intelligence is to be done. There are a number of changes that have been agreed to. All of that failure was followed by a repeat failure in 2006--in 2005 and then in 2006.

So from 1978 through 2004, the Senate had an unbroken 27-year record of completing its work on this critical legislation. You cannot move to appropriations until you go through authorization, particularly in a field such as intelligence authorization that has an unbelievably important role. The Intelligence authorization bill has been considered must-pass legislation for many years--until recently. Now, in the midst of the war on terror, with things going downhill in Iraq, going downhill in Afghanistan, and our continued military involvement in both places, when good intelligence is not just vital but a matter of life and death--and I emphasize the second--we have been prevented from passing that bill that provides the legislative roadmap for our intelligence programs.

Similar to the Defense authorization and appropriations bills, the Intelligence authorization bill is at the core of our efforts to protect America. That is why it is simply incomprehensible, shocking, and debasing that we cannot find a way to bring up and pass this critical legislation.

The result of this continued obstruction will be diminished authority for intelligence agencies to do their job in protecting America. I hope the Senator involved takes satisfaction in that. I am not sure his constituents--if it is a he--would. Yes, I am angry.

The authorization bill contains 16 separate provisions enhancing or clarifying the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. The bill includes major improvements in the way we approach and manage human intelligence, information sharing, protection of sources and methods, and even the nominations process for key intelligence community leaders.

I came to the floor several times last year to explain those provisions in detail. Today, I reiterate how important this legislation is to the war on terrorism and to every other aspect of our national security, including the ongoing fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. This should have happened years ago. Somebody objects and, of course, it cannot happen; the rules of the Senate prevail.

There is no reason the Senate cannot pass this bill quickly, so that we can confer with the House before the committee is required to turn its attention to drafting and reporting out what will be another experiment, the 2008 authorization, which we should already be halfway toward completing. If there is objection to passing this bill by unanimous consent, we have been--the vice chairman and I, who worked very well together--more than willing to negotiate a time agreement and quickly debate and pass this long-overdue national security bill.

It is essential we assist the men and women of the intelligence agencies to continue their vital work on the frontlines of Iraq and Afghanistan and something called the war on terror.

Madam President, I conclude by simply saying we need this bill.

I yield the floor.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Madam President, may I just appeal to whatever reasoned and reasonable people there may be around here, and that is that the vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee has something to say on this matter which relates to what I said. There is a sequential power in that which I think deserves consideration.