Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, there are some who may disagree with the proposition at the heart of Senator Reid's amendment; that is, that U.S. Government officials who violate the laws governing safeguarding sources should not be permitted to have continued access to that information. I happen to agree with that. I happen to think it is a fair point to discuss. As the Senator from Connecticut said, it is appropriate for this discussion. In fact, there is a document that every employee signs. It is entitled ``Department of Defense Secrecy Agreement.'' The second part of it reads: I agree that I will never divulge, publish or reveal, either by word, conduct, or by any other means, any classified information, intelligence, or knowledge, except in the performance of my official duties and in accordance with the laws of the United States, unless specifically authorized in writing in each case by the Secretary of Defense. It is my understanding Senators do not sign it, Members of Congress do not sign it, but members of the administration and staff do sign this document. All the Reid amendment does, essentially, is codify what has been carried out informally by regulation. The second-degree amendment is not fair or honorable. It is clearly designed to threaten a Member's unquestionably lawful conduct. It is venal. I believe it is unprecedented. We have asked the historian of the Senate if this has ever been done before. He said, no, never in the Senate. Once, in the House of Representatives, from 1836 to 1844, the House had a gag rule on all motions pertaining to abolition of slavery. They were immediately tabled. Otherwise, there never has been an effort like this. The problem with the substitute amendment, and let me read it, is this. It says strike all that follows and add the following: Any federal office holder who makes reference to a classified Federal Bureau of Investigation report on the floor of the Senate, or any federal officeholder that makes a statement based on an FBI agent's comments which is used as propaganda by terrorist organizations thereby putting our servicemen and women at risk, shall not be permitted access to such information or to hold a security clearance for access to this information. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the Director of the FBI. We discussed many aspects of the PATRIOT Act. Supposing I had come to the Senate and discussed those aspects and Al-Jazeera picked it up and used it as propaganda. I am within my rights to discuss that. It is unclassified. I know of no Senator that has come to the Senate and used any information that was classified. Now, there have been accusations. I got that FBI report. I have it right here. It has a big X through secret and has written on it: All information contained herein is unclassified except where shown otherwise. What this amendment aims to get at is clearly a venal retribution. Candidly, I object to it. It has never happened in the Senate before. And it should not happen today. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield, then, to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, a great deal has been said about how homeland security dollars should be allocated. I think it is pretty clear that the American people, and certainly major opinionmakers such as major newspaper editorials, major mayors and major Governors, believe it is time our Nation adopt risk-based analysis to guide critical resource allocation of homeland security efforts. This legislation will do exactly that. The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment is extremely simple in approach. Its key language, which appears at its beginning, is clear. Let me quote it: The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that homeland security grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent practicable. This legislation will ensure that these priorities are set, and set according to analysis of risk and threat. This bill accomplishes this through five basic mechanisms. First, the law requires the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to allocate grants based on risk. The legislation will mandate that funding decisions be designed according to an assessment of risk. This is a key element of the law, which makes this clear in its very first section, entitled ``Risk-Based Funding For Homeland Security,'' which reads--and I want to repeat it-- The Secretary [of Homeland Security] shall ensure that covered grants are allocated based on an assessment of threat, vulnerability, and consequence to the maximum extent possible. The bill defines ``covered grants'' as including the four major first responder grant programs administered by the Department of Homeland Security. That is: First, the State Homeland Security Grant Program; second, the Urban Area Security Initiative; third, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program; and, fourth, the Citizens Corps Program. In addition to these four core grant programs, the legislation also covers grants ``provided by the Department for improving homeland security,'' including grants for seaport and airport security. The bottom line is that if Federal funds are going to be distributed to improve first responders' ability to ``prevent, prepare for, respond to, or mitigate threatened or actual terrorist attacks,'' those funds should be distributed in accordance with a risk-based analysis. Al- Qaida and its allies do not attack based on a formula. This bill rejects the formula approach in favor of a framework that is flexible and risk focused. Second, the legislation requires that covered grants be designed to meet ``essential capabilities.'' ``Essential capabilities'' is a concept defined in this law. It is what we get for the money spent: The ability to meet the risk by reducing vulnerability to attack and diminishing the consequences by effective response. Third, the bill requires States to quickly pass on Federal funds to where they are needed. States should not hold Federal funds back from where they are most needed. This bill will ensure that States quickly and effectively move the funds through to the location. And, fourth, the bill addresses the small State minimum issue. The underlying bill requires each State to get .75 percent of the grant funding. Now, what does that mean? That means that 37.5 percent of the funds go on a formula basis to areas that might not have risk, threat, or vulnerability. For instance, under the current appropriations bill, of the $1.918 billion appropriated, $548 million is taken right off the top, allocated to States regardless of whether they are vulnerable, whether they have risk, or whether they have threat. Thus, that $548 million is not available to meet risk. This legislation will significantly reduce this large set-aside. It will reduce it from 37.5 percent to the .25 percent. Now, I must admit I am uncomfortable even with the .25 percent minimum and would prefer to eliminate any impediment to risk-based funding. I believe it is the right thing to do. I would believe this regardless of what State I came from. We set up a huge Department of Homeland Security and have given them the basis and the ability to do the analyses that are required and the intelligence that has moved in to determine what is vulnerable, where it is, where the threats are, and what the risks are. And these are going to be ever changing. But I understand the realities of the Senate, so we decided to track what the President requested in his budget. In this post-Cold-War world of asymmetric threat, there are two fundamental understandings which apply to efforts to make our Nation more secure against a terrorist attack. The first understanding is that predicting what terrorists will do requires risk analysis. It is an uncomfortable fact that even with the best intelligence we will never know exactly how, when, and where terrorists will strike. The best we can do is to adequately assess risks and threats and make predictions. The second understanding is that our defense resources are not infinite. The sum total of money, time, and personnel that can be devoted to homeland security is limited. Together these two understandings define the task for our Nation: We must accurately assess the risks of an array of possible terrorist attacks, measure the vulnerability of all of these possible targets, and then divide up resources based on that assessment, not based on some arbitrary formula that will exist regardless of what kind of threat or vulnerability may emerge in the future. The 9/11 Commission agrees with us, finding that ``nothing has been harder for officials--executive or legislative--than to set priorities, making hard choices in allocating limited resources.'' The Commission concluded: Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities. The Cornyn-Feinstein amendment is the only amendment that clearly does what the 9/11 Commission has recommended. The New York Times has agreed. In an editorial entitled ``Real Security, or Politics as Usual?'' the Times wrote: Defending places where the terrorist threat is greatest is not parochialism; it is defending America. We think that last week's tragic events in London underscore the point. The effectiveness of the British first response to these terrible attacks illustrates that they put their resources where the risks were: In London, not in some remote community, but where they knew the terrorists were most likely to attack. Despite all recommendations, we find again and again that scarce resources are allocated based on factors unrelated to real security. For instance, a small State minimum in the Collins amendment is designed to ensure that every State gets a substantial portion of scarce resources, regardless of the measure of risk or vulnerability. As a result, a State such as Wyoming gets $27.80 per capita in funding, while New York and California get $15.54 and $8.05, respectively. The problem is not just in Congress. For example, a recent Department of Homeland Security inspector general report found that in the critical area of port security, grants are ``not well coordinated with the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection.'' The result: ``funding of projects with low [risk and vulnerability] scores.'' Now, this is the IG of Homeland Security who is saying projects with low risk and vulnerability scores are currently being funded. Frankly and candidly, that is just plain wrong. It is a waste of money, and I think, to an extent, it enables--well, it really is a kind of deception because unless you can put your money where the intelligence indicates and the assessments indicate there is threat and risk, you are not protecting America. A recently issued joint report from the Center for Security Studies and the Heritage Foundation found that there is: no funding formula that is based on risk analysis and divorces from politics . . . [w]ith only limited resources available to achieve the almost limitless goal of protecting the entire United States . . . it is critical that we set priorities. That is what we are trying to do here. This amendment, and the bill upon which it is based, builds on efforts last year by Representatives Cox and Turner, the chair and ranking member respectively of the other body's Homeland Security Committee. That effort passed the House of Representatives as part of the intelligence reform bill but was dropped at conference. Our amendment is similar to this House bill. I understand and appreciate the efforts made by Senators Collins and Lieberman to craft the bill now before us. I applaud their leadership in this area. The Collins-Lieberman bill, while it purports to be risk based, is actually not. It incorporates complex formulae with a preordained list of factors which approximate what is believed to be the risk. Candidly, I don't think that works for the following reasons. First, the key to responding to al-Qaida and similar organizations is flexibility. It is not a frozen formula. Al-Qaida doesn't make decisions based on formula. While today it may seem obvious that mass transit or ports are obvious targets, tomorrow they may not be. Hopefully our intelligence community will be increasingly able to ferret out our terrorist adversaries and our analysts will be better at understanding and predicting their behavior. What are today's targets could change and change yet again. Building a formula mechanism based on our best guess about what al-Qaida will do is simply not good policy. Secondly, we created the Department of Homeland Security primarily to do exactly what this legislation calls for. The first mission statement for the Department stated: [The Department will] identify and understand threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and the American public. This is what the Department is supposed to do. It cannot be done by arbitrary formula. It can only be done listening to intelligence analysts, engaging in flexible interpretation, and being willing to move the money where the risks show up to be. That is important to do, and it should be important whether you are from a small State, a middle-sized State, or a large State. The money should go where the problems are. This is exactly what President Bush said in announcing the creation of the Department. He stated: This new department will bring together the best intelligence information about our vulnerabilities to terrorist attack so that we can act quickly to protect America. He didn't talk about an arbitrary formula. He said, the Department will bring together the best intelligence information so that flexibility becomes the watchword of the day, and money can go where it is truly needed. Senator Lieberman was a leader in this effort, and we all worked with him to create the Department of Homeland Security. In my view, the biggest selling point for this new Department was, as the President said, that for the first time, we would have a place in the Government that would map threats against vulnerability and thus allocate our defenses in an effective, efficient way. The Department of Homeland Security can be seen as a department of risk analysis. That is what it should be doing. So it is ironic that having provided the authority and responsibility to do this, the Congress then handcuffs the Secretary by restricting these resources based on geography, politics, and parochial interests. Let's let the Secretary do the job we gave him. Third, in addition to creating the Department of Homeland Security, the Congress, again with the leadership of Senators Collins and Lieberman, reorganized the intelligence community. The purpose of this task was to ensure that the most important ingredient in risk analysis--good intelligence--was enough to keep America safe. So there is an irony that having gone to such trouble to improve the intelligence community, we are prepared to pass legislation which for a large percentage of funds will make intelligence irrelevant. All they need is a map, a census, and a list of important places in each State. That makes no sense to me. I mentioned the difference in funding levels and amounts subject to risk. Last week the Congressional Research Service issued an analysis of the underlying appropriations bill, the Collins amendment, and the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment. The results are startling. If we assume that the base amount of Homeland Security grant funding contained in the appropriations bill becomes law, that means the total amount available for these programs will be $1.918 billion. The underlying bill would allocate a considerable amount under the existing small State minimum framework, $579.2 million, leaving $1.3 billion to be allocated through a risk assessment process. If the Collins-Lieberman amendment is adopted, $762 million will be allocated according to the formula--not based on risk, not based on threat, not based on risk analysis, not based on vulnerability, but simply on population and geographical distribution. That leaves even less to be allocated based on risk, only $1.155 billion. In other words, the Collins-Lieberman amendment reduces the risk-based funding in the underlying bill by nearly $150 million. If this amendment is adopted, only $251.2 million will be allocated based on the .25 small State minimum, leaving $1.66 billion for risk-based allocation. Here is the bottom line: Put another way, under the underlying bill, only 70 percent of available funds are allocated based on risk. If the Collins-Lieberman approach is adopted, that drops to 60 percent; under the approach embodied in Cornyn-Feinstein, 87 percent of funding to risk. So between the two amendments, our amendment, 87 percent of funding to risk, Collins- Lieberman, 60 percent, and the underlying bill, 70 percent. The choice is clear. What is the bottom line? The bottom line is, our Nation faces danger. We have a limited amount of resources available to defend ourselves. Those resources must and should be targeted. They should be targeted to where they can do the most good and where the risk actually is. That is the simple question which faces us today. How can we best protect our country? I believe the best way to protect America is to let the Secretary of Homeland Security do the job we appointed him to do: match resources to risk, using the best available intelligence analysis. That is the only way to safety. That is the only way to reassure our people, should there be a catastrophic event, that we have put the money in the right places. Any arbitrary formula doesn't do this. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter from the High Threat Joint Working Group on Homeland Security. This is a group of large cities that has banded together. The letter is in support of our amendment. It is the city of Anaheim in California; city of Baltimore in Maryland; city of Baton Rouge in Louisiana; city of Boston in Massachusetts; the city of Charlotte in North Carolina; the city of Chicago in Illinois; the city of Cleveland in Ohio; the city of Columbus in Ohio; the city of Dallas in Texas; Jacksonville in Florida; the city of Kansas City, MO; the city of Long Beach, CA; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; New York in New York; Newark in New Jersey; Oakland in California; Philadelphia in Pennsylvania; city of San Diego in California; the city of San Francisco in California; the city of San Jose in California; and the city of Santa Ana.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I also ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter addressed to Senator Cornyn and me, signed by Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. What they ask is that we follow the 9/11 Commission report recommendation to better allocate Federal resources based on vulnerability.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All these letters are in support of this amendment which earmarks money based on intelligence analysis of risk and threat. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if I may respond.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Senator for her courtesy. It is my understanding we have 45 minutes this afternoon at 2:15 and Senator Cornyn will lead off at 2:15. I thank the Senator.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Washington for raising this issue again. Before the Fourth of July recess, the Senate passed this amendment 96 to 0 showing this body's united commitment to our Nation's veterans. We worked hard with our colleagues across the aisle to ensure that the Veterans' Administration's shortfall in Fiscal Year 2005 was addressed by passing a $1.5 billion emergency supplemental. I was disappointed that the House of Representatives did not follow our lead and instead passed a nonemergency $975 million supplemental appropriations. I understand that the administration will be submitting a Budget amendment, shortly to address the Fiscal Year 2006 needs of the Veterans' Administration and I look forward to working with Chairman Hutchison to ensure that adequate resources are available for veterans health care next year. In the meantime, I would urge my colleagues to support the Murray amendment which addresses this year's shortfall and reaffirms our commitment to our veterans.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If I might say, Mr. President, I have great admiration for the Senator from Maine in the way she has conducted herself and the leadership she has shown.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I will use the time, if I might, then. The distinguished chairman of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs mentioned something which affected me a little bit, and I would like to respond to it respectfully, that our amendment was cobbled together on the Senate floor. I point out that our amendment was introduced as a bill on May 12. I also point out that prior to that we worked on this amendment for at least 6 months with high-risk areas, with cities, with States, and with law enforcement. This amendment is born in the belief that just as terrorists in Great Britain did not go to Stratford-on-Avon, they went to London; just as 9/11 did not take place in Milpitas, CA, it took place in the financial center of America; and just as the bombers in Spain did not go to a rural Spanish community, they went to Madrid. Now, I can only use my experience as a member of the Intelligence Committee to say whether it is advisable to have a fixed formula or advisable to give those people who have access to all of the intelligence--intelligence from CIA, intelligence from counterterrorism people, intelligence from the FBI, and all of those who do the risk analysis, whether they should have the flexibility to determine where the moneys go. From my perspective, that is the way to go. From my perspective, America is best protected if we give the people with the knowledge and the intelligence the maximum flexibility to allocate funds based on quality of grants to areas that are likely targets. Nothing can change my mind on this. If you review intelligence, you get an idea of what might be a target and what is not a target. That is just today. It could change in 6 months. It could change in 2 years. There are many of us who believe we are in this war, this asymmetric, terrible, non-state-actor war, for a long period of time. For me, just as you would give the Joint Chiefs of Staff the ability to mount a battle plan, I think we should give Homeland Security the ability to mount the risk analysis that enables the distribution of grants in the most effective way. We have tried to do this in our bill. The underlying bill has 70 percent of the funds based on risk; the Collins-Lieberman amendment, 60 percent on risk; and Feinstein-Cornyn, 87.5 percent on risk. The choice is clear. People who believe differently will vote differently. There is always a question because we know the composition of this body, we know the number of small States, and we know the likelihood that people are going to vote their State. I say to them, whether they do the best thing, if something happens and people look back as to how the money was allocated, I would much prefer to be able to say that the best experts we have have made the decisions on the allocation of funds, rather than that I would doing it on any other basis, whether that basis is population, whether it is geography, whether it is based on whether you produce food or whether you produce high tech or anything else. The money must go where the threat and risk is, the money must go where the vulnerabilities in the eyes of the terrorists are, and no formula can know where those vulnerabilities are.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much do I have remaining this morning?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, despite this vote, I wish to make a point. The administration has said in a letter dated today from Secretary Chertoff that their position is that 90 percent of homeland security funds should be distributed on the basis of risk. The Secretary goes on to say that they have 36 essential capabilities they need to carry out, and the way to do that is based on risk. Here are the numbers: In the underlying appropriations bill, 70 percent is based on risk, $1.339 billion. Under Collins-Lieberman, less than 70 percent goes to risk. It is cut back to 60 percent, $1.155 billion. Under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based on risk, or 87 percent. It is the closest number to the administration's letter dealing with this issue. I have a very hard time substituting pork for risk. I just was reading some of the intelligence. Let there be no doubt that not every State is equal in terms of target. We have set up a huge agency of 22 departments. We have given them risk analysis. We have given them intelligence. We have broken down the wall between FBI and CIA. Why? Because there is a real threat, and money should be accorded based on that threat, not based on pork.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is what our amendment does. I hope this body will vote yes. Have I used all my time?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank both Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman, and particularly Senators Cornyn, Schumer, Lautenberg, and Martinez, who spoke on behalf of our amendment. Let me make clear, our amendment does not in any way, shape, or form, we believe, interfere with the authorizing committee. The authorizing committee has the absolute right to set whatever standards it might want to in operations. What we are trying to do is see that this huge new bureaucracy, which has been set up under the Department of Homeland Security, with all of its robust new intelligence capabilities, is able to put forward a plan and have that plan be funded, and that plan will be based on risk and threat and vulnerability. And, in fact, that is what Secretary Chertoff says in his letter to us, that he and the President want at least 90 percent of the funds devoted on a risk, threat, and vulnerability basis. He also says they have come up with 36 essential capabilities they believe are critical in preventing another terrorist attack. I don't think we should go to 60-40. I truly don't believe places should get money just to increase whatever it is they can increase with their own funds. I really believe that because the money is limited, it has to go to places where there are risks, where we know there are targets, where these targets have figured actionable intelligence that has reached us. So that is what we try to do. Let me summarize once again. Under the underlying bill, the Homeland Security appropriations bill, there is $1.339 billion based on risk. The Collins-Lieberman amendment has $1.155 billion based on risk, 60 percent of the dollars. It is, in essence, less than the underlying bill. What we have tried to do is increase the amount on risk. So under the Feinstein-Cornyn amendment, there is $1.667 billion based on risk. That 87 percent of the available dollars is based on risk. This does not take anybody out of applying. This does not say this city cannot apply or this town cannot apply. What it says is, if you apply, you are going to be judged on risk, threat, and vulnerability. I actually think that when you have limited numbers of dollars, that is what you have to do. My friend and colleague, the Senator from Connecticut, mentioned the Bali bombing. And, yes, one might say that is not the capital of Indonesia. But, on the other hand, if we look at Baghdad, if we look at Beirut, if we look at most of the places where these attacks take place, they are in highly symbolic places where the economic and individual damage is large. When it comes to the United States, many of us fear a large attack, a major attack. So we have to figure, based on intelligence, where that attack is going to come down. Yes, someone might come in through a port, or they might come over the southwest border from Mexico. This is why we are trying to tighten our borders. All of that is true, but we have to figure, if that big attack takes place, where is it going to take place? What is the first response going to be? How fast is it going to be? The fact is that the British people have done this. They put an emphasis on London. Therefore, when those bombs blew up, the response was fast, and the speed of the response was able to save lives. So it is a kind of prototype, if you will, of what we are trying to achieve here. For once, I am on the same note as the administration. We would like to see as much money as possible go to cities based on risk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Thank you. We reserve the remainder of that time.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Martinez.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think this small chart describes both amendments. The underlying appropriations bill has $1.39 billion. That is 70 percent of the money. Under the Collins-Lieberman amendment, $1.155 billion is based on risk. That is 60 percent. And under the Feinstein- Cornyn amendment, $1.667 billion is based on risk. That is 87 percent. The source is the Congressional Research Service. The Congressional Research Service was called again this morning. They stand by these figures. Now, let me quickly bring to your attention the position of the administration. The position of the administration is set out in a letter of July 12 signed by Michael Chertoff to Members of the Senate. Let me just read a few parts. The administration strongly believes that Federal homeland security funds should be distributed to our first responders based on risk and need. The Administration would oppose amendments that would add new bureaucratic requirements and cap funding for high threat cities while not providing enough flexibility to distribute over 90 percent of grant funds on the basis of risk. The administration's position is 90 percent of grant funds should be distributed on the basis of risk. The closest amendment to that is Feinstein-Cornyn at 87 percent of grant funds distributed on the basis of risk. And here is the reason that DHS gives. DHS is identifying 36 capabilities that are critical to preventing another terrorist attack and, if an attack does occur, to respond and recover in a manner that minimizes loss of life and other damages. We must focus our State and local preparedness efforts on building those capabilities to the right level and in the right places. Funding our first responders based on risk and need gives us the flexibility to ensure our finite resources are allocated in a prioritized and objective manner. Mr. President, I could not agree with that more. That is why we feel so strongly about our amendment. You have to send the money where the need is. You have to send the money where the anticipation is that there might be an attack, where the intelligence says--not this body; we don't know--this Nation is vulnerable. What Senator Cornyn and I have tried to do is see that there is enough flexibility to get enough of that money out there. The President has set the standard at 90 percent. Our bill comes to 87 percent. Unlike the Collins-Lieberman amendment, the Cornyn-Feinstein amendment retains the high-threat cities' Urban Area Security Initiative Program. This program and these regions--some 50 cities-- have for several years been aggressively working to implement comprehensive plans. They remain intact, unless the Secretary of Homeland Security decides to the contrary. I included in the Record previously the letter from them containing 30 of the cities. It is actually true this body can vote yes on both amendments. But my view is this: We are spending billions and billions on intelligence. We are beefing up every aspect of intelligence, creating new entities, improving interfacing, giving this huge new Department of Homeland Security all kinds of analysis responsibility. But we are also giving them a formula by which they have to allocate the money. That makes no sense at all. Let them do it on the basis of risk. Let them do it on the basis of threat and vulnerability. Let them move money around as the need indicates. I don't believe there is anyone in this body who is prescient enough to know where al-Qaida or Gama'a al-Islamiyya or any other group might attack the United States next. One thing we do know, there are terrorist cells in this country, and they are geographically spread across the country. There is no question about that. So why shouldn't the money be based on risk and threat? This amendment does that: 87 percent of the funds, $1.667 billion, based on risk. The administration's standard is 90 percent. Our amendment comes closest to that standard. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.