Statement Of Sen. Patrick Leahy
On Final Passage Of The "Improving America's Security
By Implementing Unfinished Recommendations
Of The 9/11 Commission Act Of 2007
March 13, 2007

Mr. LEAHY.  Mr. President, I have voted today in favor of final passage of the Improving America’s Security by Implementing Unfinished Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, S. 4, but I do so with a heavy heart.

I am truly disappointed that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Senators Lieberman and Collins, decided to arbitrarily lower the minimum allocation for states under the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program from the 0.75 percent that has existed for the past five years to 0.45 percent.  Not only would this change to the formula result in the loss of millions in homeland security funding for the fire, police and rescue departments in small- and medium-sized states, like Vermont, Connecticut and Maine; it also would deal a crippling blow to their efforts to launch federally mandated multi-year plans to build and sustain their terrorism preparedness. 

During the Senate floor debate on S. 4, I offered with Senators Thomas, Stevens, Roberts, Pryor, Sanders, Enzi, Hatch, Whitehouse and Lincoln an amendment to restore the minimum allocation for states under the State Homeland Security Grant Program from 0.45 percent, which is proposed by the underlying bill, to 0.75 percent, which is current law.  As with current law, the state minimum under our amendment would have continued to apply only to 40 percent of the overall funding under this program.  The majority of the funds would continue to be allocated based on risk assessment criteria, as are the funds under the several separate discretionary programs that Congress has established for solely urban and high-risk areas, which also are governed by risk assessment calculations.

Unfortunately, this amendment lost by a vote of 49 Yays to 50 Nays.  This is a marked change from just last year, when the 0.75 percent minimum allocation was overwhelmingly defended when 64 senators voted against an amendment that would have lowered the minimum to 0.25 percent.  Fifteen senators changed their votes from last year, including HSGAC Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, whose states stand to lose the most from the decreased minimum.

The bill that passed the Senate today would reduce the all-state minimum for SHSGP and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program to 0.45 percent.  The House bill reduces it even further to 0.25 percent.  Due to the formula differences, there is no guarantee that the minimum will not be even further reduced during conference negotiations.  Small- and medium-sized states face the loss of millions of dollars for our first responders if the minimum is lowered.

By reducing the all-state minimum to 0.45 percent, the underlying bill would reduce the guaranteed dollar amount for each state by 40 percent.  With appropriations for formula grants having been cut by 60 percent since 2003 – from $2.3 billion in 2003, to $900 million in FY07 – further reductions in first responder funding would hamper even more each state’s efforts to prevent and deal with potential terrorist attacks.

In FY07, State Homeland Security and Law Enforcement Terrorism grants were funded at $525 million and $375 million, respectively, for a total of $900 million.  Under the current all-state minimum of 0.75 percent, the base amount states receive is $6.75 million.  Based on FY07 levels, each state would face a loss of an estimated $2.7 million, or 40 percent, under the new 0.45 percent formula, which would be a real blow to our first responders.

And the cuts will be even deeper should the President’s budget request for next year be approved.  The President has requested only $250 million for these two important first responder grant programs.

My colleagues from our largest states – and apparently some small- and medium-sized states – seem to forget that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 added to the responsibilities and risks of first responders nationwide.  I wrote the current all-state minimum formula as part of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 to guarantee that each state receives at least 0.75 percent of the national allotment to help meet their national domestic security needs.

Every state – rural or urban, small or large – has basic domestic security needs and deserves to receive Federal funds under this partnership to meet both those needs and the new homeland security responsibilities the Federal government demands.  Of course, high-density urban areas and high-risk centers have even greater needs, which is why this year alone we provided $1.3 billion for homeland security programs for which only a small number of urban areas are eligible to apply.  All of these needs deserve and need to be met.  I have worked hard over the years to help address the needs of larger states and high-density areas, and I have opposed the Bush Administration’s efforts to pit our states against each other, as they have tried to mask their efforts to cut overall funding for first responders.

Smaller states, especially, would never be able to fulfill those essential duties on top of their daily responsibilities without Federal support, especially given that DHS is currently suggesting that states will pay for REAL ID implementation, an estimated $16 billion, with first responder grants.  My colleagues should be warned that if the minimum drops further – compounded by substantial drops in overall first responder funding – then small- and medium-sized states will not be able to meet those Federal mandates for terrorism prevention, preparedness and response.

Some from urban states argue that Federal money to fight terrorism is being sent to areas that do not need it and is “wasted” in small towns.  They claim the formula highly politicized and insist on the redirection of funds to urban areas that they believe face heightened threat of terrorist attacks.

What critics of the all-state minimum seem to forget is that since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Federal government has asked ALL State and local first responders to defend us as never before on the front lines in the war against terrorism.  Emergency responders in one state have been given the same obligation as those in any other state to provide enhanced protection, preparedness and response against terrorists.

The attacks of 9/11 added to the responsibilities and risks of first responders across the country.  In recent years, due to the 0.75 percent all-state minimum allocation for formula grants that has existed in law, first responders have received resources to help them meet their new responsibilities have made our neighborhoods safer and our communities better prepared.

There is much left undone in securing our Nation.  I hope that the Senate’s conferees will resist calls for further needless reductions to the all-state minimum base and risk the preparedness efforts in small states like their own.  I trust they will do all they can during conference negotiations to ensure continued support and resources for our police, fire and EMS services in every state if we expect them to continue protecting us from terrorists or responding to terrorist attacks, as well as carrying out their ongoing responsibilities in helping to keep our communities safe and prepared.

# # # # #