Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004 - Continued

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004—CONTINUED

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we are listening to quite a tirade against giving money to the high-threat areas. The question is raised, Why? When you go to a hospital and you have a sick patient, someone who is really in trouble, he or she will be among the first to receive the medication. That is the situation about which we are talking.

We lost 3,000 people on September 11, 2001 most of them in New York. This is the focal point for economic
activity—probably the most important financial center in the entire world. We look at the cities of Philadelphia and New York and there is New Jersey, right in the middle, with lots of commuters. We lost 700 innocent citizens on that day.

We have $29 billion going into homeland security but we need more. I know where to take it from: Take it from the huge tax cut that was given to those who do not need it.

For goodness' sake, the first round of emergency response grants had New Jersey and New York among the least compensated on a per capita basis. Our populations are squeezed together. New Jersey has the highest population density of all the States in the country. We have all kinds of important facilities, beside harbors and the financial center, that affect the way our country functions.

To say, you got enough money, that's just not right. I repeat: when the Department of Homeland Security gave out the first round of grants, New Jersey and New York were among the States most poorly treated on a per capita basis and yet our two States paid the biggest price on 9-11 when it comes to what constitutes a terrorist threat.

We may be threatened here with repercussions because we want money for the ports, we want money for transportation, or otherwise. Threaten all you want, but you cannot idly threaten the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and other high-threat urban areas, walk away, and say: You got enough money.

I hope everyone is listening. What we need to do is recognize our areas of susceptibility and help those areas first. When it comes to toxic air or toxic water, we distribute the funds based on where the problem exists, where there are Superfund sites, and we try to give those areas more money so they can fix their problems.

The whole country wept on September 11, 2001. Everyone was weeping. And they all felt susceptible. But some know, many know, there are areas that are more susceptible than others. Those places are Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and other high-density urban areas.

Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield.

Mr. SCHUMER. I know my colleague is aware the high-threat areas were not just New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania when the last round of money was given out. I know my colleague is aware that 30 cities got special money because the cities had special needs, including Boston, Denver, Philadelphia, Miami, Detroit, Newark, San Diego, Phoenix, Baltimore, Dallas, Buffalo, St. Louis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Sacramento, Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Long Beach, New Orleans, Memphis, Cleveland, Tampa, Seattle, New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The high-needs areas are not simply in three States, they are in special areas.

I ask my colleague two questions. Was he aware that 30 cities got this money? And this year we are putting less money into high needs than last year.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I was not aware of the specifics. I just know that in the areas already hit very hard—New York, New Jersey—a very serious threat remains. There are port facilities that are not protected at all. There are rail facilities. There are all kinds of things that could be destroyed or disrupted in a flash with the right kind of weapon or terrorist plan.
Whoever thought the Trade Center would come down—110 stories, just crash to the ground, melted into nothingness? No.
Mr. SCHUMER. Will my colleague yield for another question?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I sure will.

Mr. SCHUMER. Our good friend from Alaska said we have needs on a per capita basis. But is my colleague aware that on a per capita basis the high-need States get less money? It is not the same. This is not evenly distributed on a per capita basis, because the formula here has .75 for every State—much higher.

I believe in helping all the States but this is higher than we have ever seen in a formula distributing money to every State. As a result, a State such as Wyoming or Alaska, for instance, would get far more money on a per capita basis—

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. SCHUMER. It is the time of the Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. STEVENS. I ask for the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER. Who has the floor, Mr. President?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey has the floor.

Mr. SCHUMER. On a per capita basis than even a larger, high-threat State. Is my colleague aware of that?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I am absolutely aware of that. That is why I am surprised when I hear the distinguished Senator from Alaska, who knows this place better than anybody, who knows how desperately grants are sought and fought for, as he has so many times for his own State of Alaska, as he should, and how many times he has been successful, and how many times grants have been given to Alaska because his constituents needed the help.

But what goes around comes around, as they say. Now its New Jersey and New York that need that kind of help and we shouldn't be turned away.

With regard to the offsets for this amendment, I would prefer that we not take the money from communications and from science and technology. I would submit that there are other offsets, including the one I suggested a moment ago—one I would be most willing to forego—and that is the tax break that has come along. Take some of that money, the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved, the billions of dollars over the next several year years, and put that money back where it belongs, to protect our society.

I yield the floor.