Thad Cochran

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. The Senator makes a point we should consider. I agree with that. It is awfully difficult for us to know the future or to be able to predict it and the needs of every agency of the Government, even FEMA. But we do the best we can and we will continue to work hard. Any advice or suggestions the Senators might have for the appropriate level of funding on an annual basis would be welcome. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. It poses a real danger, not only to the people in that area but also to property. It is clear that the disaster relief fund of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which we replenished just a few days ago to the tune of $2 billion, could run out of money again. I know the tendencies of this Congress to be that where there are needs like that, we will act to address them. At a time when that relief fund or any other account is depleted and hurricane victims need the attention of these agencies and the benefits to which they are entitled, we will act. I believe we will act promptly and with dispatch and with generosity to the fullest extent allowed under the law.

Mr. COCHRAN. It is one of the agencies under the Department of Homeland Security, and it is covered in this annual appropriations bill.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to waive.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the point of order was sustained.

Mr. COCHRAN. I am happy to reserve that right and yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. It may have been made and I just haven't heard about it. The Senator from Florida may be more up to date than I am. But I knew it was an option that was being considered and being discussed. I was not aware that the decision had definitely been made to do that.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, under the previous order, the amendment of the Senator from Florida adding funds for the Red Cross is the pending business, which should be adopted by voice vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we thank the Senator from Connecticut for his good advice and suggestions in the handling of this bill. We recommend we proceed to a voice vote on his amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we reviewed the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Nevada. We think it should be accepted by the Senate, so we hope it will be adopted on a voice vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I appreciate very much the suggestion of the Senator from New York. The fact is, we have already identified an appropriate amount of funding for this area of concern in the bill. The committee has reviewed the request very carefully. Because the committee has exhausted its allocation of funds available to it under the allocation of the full committee on appropriations, we have identified what we think is an appropriate amount of funding for this area of concern and activity of the Department of Homeland Security. I make a point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act that the amendment provides spending in excess of the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, we are at a point now where we can announce to Senators our intention to proceed to votes on some of the amendments that are pending now. The amendment of the Senator from New Jersey, which he has modified, would be the first amendment we would consider. It would be the intention of this manager to move to table the Corzine amendment and get the yeas and nays, and then have a similar motion against the Dayton amendment No. 3629 and the Clinton/ Schumer amendment No. 3632. We are advised that the Appropriations Committee is in meeting now and members may not be available until close to 4, but we could begin these votes at 3:45. The distinguished assistant leader has assured us that is an agreement that is OK with the Democratic side of the aisle, and with that understanding, I will propound this unanimous consent request. I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the following amendments in the order mentioned: Corzine No. 3619, as modified; Dayton No. 3629; Clinton No. 3632. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order to the amendments prior to those votes and that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes, and finally that the second and third votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. COCHRAN. Has a motion to table the Corzine amendment been made?

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the committee has recommended in this bill $193,673,000 for protective action activities, for developing and implementing protective programs for the Nation's critical infrastructures, including chemical facilities, Federal, State and local, and private sector activities and programs and best practices. Nationwide, we have seen 2,040 chemical facilities complete vulnerability assessments as developed by Sandia National Laboratories and the Center for Chemical Process Safety. The Department of Homeland Security has made considerable progress in increasing the security of chemical facilities across the country. Site visits are conducted at chemical facilities as part of a buffer zone protection plan. These plans reduce specific vulnerabilities and build a general protection capacity of communities. As part of the protective buffer zone effort, the protective security division has developed plans to install cameras to detect and deter surveillance and other threatening activities. The Department has provided protective measures and risk management efforts on the sites of greatest concern. We are confident these are working to improve the safety and security of chemical facilities. We urge the Senate to support the committee and vote to approve the motion to table the Corzine amendment.

Mr. COCHRAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3639

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, the bill provides adequate funds-- generous funding--for this program. I make a point of order under section 302(f) that the amendment exceeds the subcommittee's allocation under section 302(b) of the Budget Act.

Mr. COCHRAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, that would be my suggestion. If the Senator will yield, we will adopt the amendment on a voice vote at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators who are interested.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, I am happy to express my support for the adoption of this amendment on a voice vote at the conclusion of the remarks of Senators from Delaware and California or any other Senators who would like to speak.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, at the appropriate time it will be my intention to make the point of order against the amendment, in that it violates the Budget Act because it provides for the appropriation of additional funds above the allocation of the amount available to this subcommittee and there is no offset provided in the amendment. So for the information of Senators, that is the intention of the managers of the bill. Under the previous order, as I understand it, a vote is scheduled to occur at 2:20. Is that the order?

Mr. COCHRAN

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am sure Senators are aware that the Governmental Affairs Committee of the Senate has jurisdiction over the legislative authority, the law, creating the Department of Homeland Security. In that, legislation grant programs are described, allocation formulas are contained, that give guidance to the distribution of Federal funds to States and localities for various programs. The Senator from New York is suggesting, by her first amendment, that the appropriations bill that is before the Senate should be amended to change the way the grants are being given to States and localities. The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee has already addressed this issue. Hearings have been held. A review and consideration of various changes in the allocation process have all been reviewed. And the committee has acted. They have reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee S. 1245. That is a Senate bill called the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act. The act, as reported by the committee, will modify the formula for distributing domestic preparedness grants. If the Senate wants to take action as suggested by the Senator from New York, it can adopt that bill or amend it as may be suggested by the Senator from New York. That is the appropriate vehicle for revising first responder grant funding, not this appropriations bill. We are bound by the law. We are funding the programs authorized by the law. We are giving funds according to the priorities of that law. Every time we have an annual appropriations bill, we cannot change the way those formulas are written. That would be bad policy, bad practice, and it should not be followed in this instance on this issue. Every State in the Nation is entitled to a base level of Federal support for homeland security needs. A State's size or population does not necessarily reflect the level of danger to a State's population or to a city's population. Each State has the responsibility to make decisions that are designed to protect the property and the lives of its citizens, and they must allocate State resources--and local resources may be allocated as well--to train, equip, and maintain qualified first responders for those purposes. I believe the committee has done a very good job of analyzing and recognizing the needs of our larger and most threatened cities. In the fiscal year 2003 appropriations and the wartime supplemental, $850 million was set aside for high-threat urban discretionary grants. In fiscal year 2004, in the appropriations bill, a further $725 million was set aside for these high-threat urban areas. The bill now before the Senate contains $875 million dedicated to high-threat urban discretionary grants. Taken together, this is over $2.4 billion just for the urban areas of our country. This is on top of the basic grant each State receives. The Department of Homeland Security has developed a model using classified information to allocate resources to major urban areas based on a combination of current threat estimates, critical assets within the urban area, as well as population density. The formula uses a combination of these factors to produce proportional resource allocations. Of the high-threat urban grant funding for fiscal year 2004, over $79 million has gone to communities in New York State. Since the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, over $316 million has been made available to cities in New York. These funds are in addition to the dollars that were received by the State of New York through the basic State grants. In fiscal year 2004, more than $141 million in discretionary high- threat funding has been allocated to communities in California. Since the inception of the Urban Area Security Initiative, more than $247 million has been made available to the State of California. So the needs of our urban areas and the States with high population centers are already being addressed. But so, too, are those in other States of our great Nation. We should not come in on this bill today with this amendment and change the formula for the basic State grant program. That debate should occur when the Senate considers the Governmental Affairs Committee bill, S. 1245, which is now on the calendar of the Senate. I urge my colleagues to oppose the first amendment of the Senator from New York. The second amendment the Senator has offered deals with Urban Area Security Initiative funding and suggests to the Senate that the amount available in the bill should be increased. In this bill, as in last year's appropriation, we have continued to provide funds specifically for the largest metropolitan areas that face the most risk. The Urban Area Security Initiative grant fund is distributed at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. I have mentioned that. It is based on current threat information and other factors. With the resources available, the bill makes the best use of these limited resources. Let me make that point again. These are limited resources. This committee has been allocated a certain amount of money, around $32 billion, to provide funding for this next fiscal year for activities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies that are funded in this bill. With those limitations, choices have to be made. It would be good to be able to increase funding for all of the programs in this bill. They are all worthwhile programs or they would not be in the bill. They are all important activities. But at some point the committee has to make a decision. It has to say: This is the amount that is allocated for this next fiscal year for this particular account or program. This bill includes $875 million for the Urban Area Security Initiative. Since fiscal year 2003, including the amount provided here, over $2.4 billion will have been made available for the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Senator's amendment would add an additional $625 million, almost doubling the Urban Area Security Initiative, to this grant program. Because of the reasons I have cited, at the appropriate time, I will suggest that a point of order should lie against this amendment. Next let me read another provision of the committee report which I think will explain why it is important for us to reject this amendment: The Committee is concerned with the administration of the funds available to assist the communities most in danger in the United States. The continued expansion of the cities eligible for this funding has the impact of diluting the resources that have been made available, shortchanging those communities with the most serious quantifiable threat. The Committee believes the Department achieved a more optimal use of the funds in fiscal year 2003. Further, the Committee believes the Department's practice over the past two fiscal years, to allocate the full amount appropriated for the program at one time near the beginning of the year, leaves the Department with little ability to respond to new or updated intelligence or recent terrorist threats. Consequently, the Committee recommends that at least 10 percent of the funds appropriated for the program be reserved to meet any needs over the course of the fiscal year warranted by more current threat information and intelligence. Any reserve funds remaining at the beginning of the last quarter of the fiscal year shall be released to fiscal year 2005 grant recipients as determined by the Secretary. It is my hope that the Senate will reject both of the amendments offered by the Senator from New York.

Mr. COCHRAN. I will not object. I have a unanimous consent request to make.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:20 today, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Mikulski amendment No. 3624, with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to the vote; provided further that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to the vote.

Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, knowing that the Senator from New York wishes to offer an amendment, I am not going to talk long. But I want to make one observation. We ought not to be getting into the business in the Senate of deciding for States and localities how they spend this grant money or how they spend the SAFER Act money. We need to have the flexibility to make those decisions with State and local governments. If we start telling a fire department they have to buy equipment with this amount of money, that they have to train people with this other amount of money, they have to equip trucks and vehicles with this amount, this amount is for that or the other, we are making a big mistake. We are not the managers of these departments. We are not in the position to make the best decisions about how to efficiently use funds from Washington that will help our communities be safer and improve the quality of service provided by firefighters, law enforcement personnel, emergency management workers, or the rest. That is why the grant programs are broad and general. The States develop the plans for using the funds available to them from the Department of Homeland Security in many of these areas. It is the States and localities we ought to depend on to make the best decisions. If we did what the Senator from Connecticut is suggesting we do, we would get into the business of making these departments allocate funds for one category or one specific activity or the other, and that is a big mistake. Adopting this amendment flies right in the face of the administrative policies that this Department is trying to develop and implement, and it is working to make our communities safer because we are leaving the decisions to those who are in the best position to know what is needed in their communities. Do the firefighters need training in a certain area or another? I don't know the answer to that, if it applies to a fire department in my State. But the chief may know. He ought to know. He is in a better position to make the recommendations to the State officials as to what their needs are. These people are applying for these funds. They are having to set out how they propose to use them. At other levels of administration, the decision is made to assign priorities and which ones have a higher priority than another. That ought not to be made on the floor of the U.S. Senate. It is a mistake to get into the details as suggested by this amendment and take money away from activities that are ongoing, that are planned for this year, and then cut the funding for it. That is just going to make it more and more difficult to have a coherent, balanced approach to homeland security. We hope the Senate will reject the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.