Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010

Floor Speech

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - July 09, 2009)

AMENDMENT NO. 1432

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I believe there is now 5 minutes per side to debate the amendment I have offered, which is cosponsored by Senator McCain. I would appreciate it if the Chair will advise me when I have consumed 2 minutes. Senator McCain will talk for about 2 minutes, and I wish to reserve the last minute following Senator Tester.

The amendment is very simple. It strikes $900,000 for an earmark for the city of Whitefish Emergency Operations Center in Montana. The administration terminated funding for these types of projects in its 2010 budget submission. This operations center has not been subject to a congressional hearing nor has it been authorized by Congress. It is a pure earmark. Not only did the administration not request funding for the project, it specifically zeroed out funding.

Senator Feingold had an amendment that would have subsumed this project along with several others. That amendment failed. But he noted in regard to his amendment that while we may not all agree on the appropriateness of earmarks in general, I certainly hope we can agree certain things ought not be earmarked, including FEMA grant programs such as those protecting Americans from terrorist attacks. I quote Senator Feingold, because this is precisely the view of the 9/11 Commission. From page 396 of that report it included this recommendation:

Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities ..... Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.

The report goes on to state:

In a free-for-all over money, it is understandable that representatives will work to protect the interests of their home states or districts, but this issue is too important for politics as usual to prevail. Resources must be allocated according to vulnerabilities.

That is why in its budget submission the administration said this:

The administration is proposing to eliminate the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program in the 2010 budget because the program's award allocations are not based on a risk assessment. Also, other Department of Homeland Security grant programs can provide funding for the same purposes more effectively.

So you have the 9/11 Commission saying these programs should be eliminated; you have the administration saying, in its budget submission, they should be eliminated from the budget submission, that they should not be subject to earmarks. That is why our amendment is being offered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KYL. Madam President, I certainly accept the argument of my friend from Montana that this could be put to good purpose in Whitefish, MT. It could be put to good use in Yuma or Nogales or anywhere else in the country. That is why the 9/11 Commission said, and I quote again:

Homeland Security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities ..... The Congress should not use this money as a pork barrel.

All we ask is, as the administration did, that the money be allocated based on the risk assessment from the Department of Homeland Security, not on the ability of a particular Congressman or Senator to get the money earmarked in a bill.

I ask unanimous consent that page 396 of the 9/11 Commission report be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks, and again urge my colleagues to support this amendment, as at least one small step we can take to demonstrate that we agree with the 9/11 Commission and we agree with the administration that these grants should be based on risk, rather than earmarks.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source